Third Party & Independents: Archives

#11. He’s been brain-dead for years so nobody will notice any difference.

#12. No blood will be spilled (and clean-up will be a snap!) because he’s actually an anatomic robot created by the Disney Corporation.

#13 He isnt really a christian or he would know about a little thing called “thou shall not kill”

i love you guys….

OK - Got another one:

#14 - It’ll put the fear of God into Jerry Falwell.

Chuck,

This is not the thread you promised me. :-(

But, it’s very cute, in a spine-tingling sort of way. :-)

Think of it this way, if our government had any intention of assinating Chavez before, they really can’t do it now.

Chuck:
“#14 - It’ll put the fear of God into Jerry Falwell.”

#15. Because Tinky Winky is volunteering his services to take out both Robertson and Falwell!

There’s nothing funny about Jerry Falwell. An exerpt from his 1987 autobiography:

There were times that Dad’s pranks bordered on cruelty. One of his oil-company workers, a one-legged man he nicknamed “Crip” Smith, complained about everything. Dad and Crip’s co-workers got tired of the old man’s bellyaching and decided to take revenge. One morning Crip called in sick and Dad volunteered to send by lunch to his grateful but suspicious employee. Dad and his chums caught Crip’s old black tomcat, killed it, skinned it, and cooked it in the kitchen of one of Dad’s little restaurants. They called it squirrel meat and delivered it to Crip on a linen-covered tray. When Crip returned to work the next morning, Dad and his co-conspirators asked him how he liked his meal. They knew he would complain even about a free home-cooked lunch, and when Crip called it “the toughest squirrel meat” he had ever eaten, they were glad to tell him why.

Burt,

“There were times that Dad’s pranks bordered on cruelty.”

That does suggest that Falwell wasn’t supportive of his father and his pranks, so what’s the point of this quote?

#16 All women can return to being lesbians.

#17 Children everywhere can again celebrate satanic rituals on Halloween.

#17 Do unto others as would have done unto you.

Got a kick out of the post, and some of the comments.

I once told someone on this blog that I don’t support Pat Robertson any more than I do PBS.
One of the reasons is statements like this.

vex
#13 He isnt really a christian or he would know about a little thing called “thou shall not kill”

I can’t say if he is or not but he sure don’t sound like advocating assassinating someone.
TURE CHRISTIANITY WOULD NEVER ADVOCATE SUCH A THING!

Burt-
Sounds like a backwoods Greek tragedy to me.

Aldous must be sleeping or he would have listed

Reason #18 Get him to enlist for the Republican war.

If there were no Christian people, would there still be a Christian Church? Robertson has 1 Million viewers each day calling themselves Christian, and they love what he has to say.

This is a part of what Christianity is, bigoted, hypocritical, and self-centered without anchors in the teachings of Christ. One million Robertson followers can’t be wrong.

David,

“This is a part of what Christianity is, bigoted, hypocritical, and self-centered without anchors in the teachings of Christ. One million Robertson followers can’t be wrong.”

No, that is not what Christianity is, that’s what some self-professed Christians are.

And is it any wonder that people honesty believe that the liberals are trying to suppress Christianity?

Stephanie, sorry, but your statement is wrong on this. Christianity is a religion. Religions don’t exist without preachers and followers of that religion. Pat Robertson is a Christian preacher and he has more than a million followers for his ministry who agree with him. Ergo, this is part of Christianity, as I said. Logically, it is irrefutable, but, you can insist anything you like, logical or not, true or not. Free country.

Just as Islamic Fundamentalists who preach Fatwa’s and destruction of Infidels, are a part of Islam, so, too, is Robertson and his followers with all their bigotry, hypocrisy, and intolerance, part of Christianity. By definition.

Now if you want to make the case that Robertson’s teachings do not always reflect the teachings of Christ, then we can agree. But, much of what the Christian Church is and was, does and has done, has not been in accord with the teachings of Christ. I hope we could agree on that as well. I regard Christ as the greatest teacher in western history, Christians are as Christians act, and Roberston and his group do not follow the teachings of Christ when they preach intolerance, hate, and justify murder. Yet, they make up a significant part of the evangelical Christian ministry in America. They are part of the definition of what Christianity is in America.

David,

You are suggesting that Pat Robertson represents ALL Christians by saying that HE is a Christian and that the million people who watch is ministry AGREE with him and are also CHRISTIANS. Your “logic” is refutable, because I AM A CHRISTIAN and have never seen Pat Robertson and do not share his views on the appropriateness of assisination, which is the only view of his I know.

Just because Pat Robertson says it doesn’t mean he represents Christianity, the same way Islamic terrorists don’t represent Islam, they represent their version of Christianity or Islam, not the whole.

You are suggesting that Pat Robertson represents ALL Christians by saying that HE is a Christian and that the million people who watch is ministry AGREE with him and are also CHRISTIANS.

David never said all, he said significant. Just because you want him to say all, doesn’t make it so.

I don’t agree with Osama Bin Laden, Pat Robertson, Shrub, Hitler, Tomas de Torquemada or David Koresh, but just because I don’t share their views doesn’t make them insignificant, and certainly doesn’t make them any less dangerous.

Stephanie,

Just a little piece of fluff I tossed off. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry to disappoint :^(

Burt,

Dad’s little prank on Crip was a good one, but the best one I ever read was pulled off by that master comedian, Alfred Hitchcock.

As I recall it from The Dark Side of Genius by Donald Spoto, Hitch was filming on location at a particularly spooky house. Everyone in the crew agreed on how frightening the place was, except for one of the prop men. So Hitch bet the man a modest amount that he’d be too frightened to spend the night there alone. The prop man agreed and then they tried to figure out how they could verify their bet. So Hitch suggested handcufing him to a bannister to be certain that he’d spent the entire night there alone. He left the prop man there with a thermos of tea, but what the prop man didn’t know was that Hitchcock had spiked the tea with a powerful laxative. When the crew came onto the set the next day, they found the prop man handcuffed to the bannister and sitting in a pile of his own excrement, weeping.

Now there’s a guy with a sense of humor!

I guess that turned his prop man into a poop man. (Groan)

I don’t think you guys realize how prevalent Pat Robertson is…

I live overseas. Some countries around here the ONLY US Religious Program seen is the 700 Club. Its like having 99% Local and 1% US Programming. For many people, that 1% is all they know of America and its religious culture. This international exposure has made Pat Robertson far more recognizable than Jerry Falwell especially in South America and Asia.

What do you think will happen when South Americans and the Muslims in Asia turn on their TV and see Pat Robertson doing this?

Chuck,

I’m not disappointed that you wrote THIS, I was simply looking forward to the UN bit. When do I get to see that? And this was fun until the extremists do represent *fill-in-the-blank* part. ;-)

Aldous,

And who exactly chose to make Pat Robertson so available and nobody else? Do we have control of that, or is the choice of the people overseas?

I thought I’d locate some various responses to the reverend’s statement in order to help the debate. Since both sides are represented “equally,” as it is on Watchblog, it may help us to understand whether Pat Robertson has a point. What better way to guide us through the issue than hearing some well thought out arguments…

Fox Fan’s Responses to Pat Robertson

And who exactly chose to make Pat Robertson so available and nobody else?

That’s easy. Free Market and 1+ million christians. Two of the most popular ingredients in the GOP cookbook.

#20 - Let CBS cover it live, they could use a break.

Gee, and I thought to be a Christian meant to be Christ-like.

(just don’t ask them to prove that it actually happened…)

#21 Pat Robertson has weapons of mass destruction. Pat Robertson is a threat to America.

Gee, and I thought to be a Christian meant to be Christ-like.

For Pat, not so much. But this assassination thing is just one of the doosies he’s lobbed out in the open. From http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/revpat.htm:

Audience Participant: “I’ve been reading through the Book of Numbers recently, and come across that passage in Chapter 31 about the destruction of the Midianites. How do you explain that apparent travesty of the destruction of that people with the just and holy God?”

Pat Robertson: The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry. They sacrificed their children. They had all kinds of abominable sex practices. They were having sex apparently with animals. They were having sex men with men and women with women. They were committing adultery and fornication. They were serving idols. As I say, they were offering their children up, and they were forsaking God.

God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them. And that seems like a terrible thing to do. Is it or isn’t it? Well, let us assume that there were two thousand of them or ten thousand of them living in the land, or whatever number, I don’t have the exact number, but pick a number. And God said, “Kill them all.” Well, that would seem hard, wouldn’t it? But that would be 10,000 people who probably would go to hell. But if they stayed and reproduced, in thirty, forty or fifty or sixty or a hundred more years there could conceivably be … ten thousand would grow to a hundred, a hundred thousand conceivably could grow to a million, and there would be a million people who would have to spend an eternity in Hell! And it is far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a hundred years down the road, and say, “Well, I’ll have to take away a million people, that will be forever apart from God because the abomination is there.” It’s like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn’t going to change, and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites and pull the Israelites away from God and prevent the truth of God from reaching the earth. And so God in love — and that was a loving thing — took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number.

Now that’s a long answer, but I think that’s closer to it. Danuta?

Danuta Soderman: “Well, my question would be, Pat, why didn’t He just save them all? I mean, why didn’t He say, “I forgive you, I save you,” and save them that way? Why obliterate them?”

Robertson: A righteous God, just like a righteous judge — if a man comes into court who has committed murder, the judge can’t say, “Well I’m a merciful kind of judge, and the jury has found you guilty of premeditated, first degree murder, but I’m such a nice guy, you can just go ahead and I forgive you.” He can’t do that and uphold the law. They would impeach him. A judge has to keep the law and God has certain laws in the universe which must be upheld. The only way He fulfilled those laws was to die himself in the person of His son on the cross. And he is not going to force anybody to accept him. It has to be a free choice. And they had freely chosen to reject him and it doesn’t get any better. It gets worse.
— Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, May 6, 1985, justifying and celebrating the wholesale genocide allegedly committed by the early invading Israelites. Excerpted from “Genocidal Act of ‘Love’” by Elliott Finesse, and critically edited by Cliff Walker; some portions are contained in Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America.

Christianity, like any religion is practiced within a culture. There is a culture that thinks that going after perceived enemies of God and killing them is righteous.

The problem with Christian leaders like him is that they are constantly displaying an inability to forgive sinners as they expect to be forgiven (forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us), and constantly speak for God as if they are his mouthpieces, which is a presumptuous thing to do. They don’t display the humility and the appreciation for their own imperfections that are the hallmarks of the prototypical Christian.

David, I had many of your misperceptions about Christianity until I read more of the text of the bible itself and found that much of what was written addressed such objections, in fact included them as part of a philosophy of life that deals with man’s imperfections. I hope you take the time at some point to read through the actual literature there, and understand that the imperfection of the religion should not be held against the faith itself.

Taylor,

“That’s easy. Free Market and 1+ million christians. Two of the most popular ingredients in the GOP cookbook.”

And what exactly does the GOP cookbook have to do with what’s aired overseas? I would think the people overseas would have some say over what they’re seeing, unless their governments don’t give them that, and then their governments are intentionally skewwing what their citizens see to alienate them from us.

Stephen, I have nothing but the greatest possible respect and reverence for the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible. It is the Churches, their ministers, popes etc, and significant minorities of their followership that I have great and IMO healthy skepticism about. And it is the Church and such followers that drove me away from Christianity to Buddhism in my late teens.

I have seen nothing in the many decades since, to give me cause to reconsider that decision. When was the last time you heard a Buddhist monk advocate assasination or nuking other nations or cultures or our own state department? I rest my case.

BTW, I was hoping for some rather factual information from Aldous…though, in retrospect, I guess that might have been foolish of me.

Stephanie. If you calm down and reread what I wrote, you will see that I was very careful to stipulate that he does NOT represent all Christians. It helps to read and respond to what is actually said, rather than skip the details to justify an outburst.

David,

A bit off-topic, but as a Buddhist is there one good book (or a few, if necessary) that delineates the faith? Most Buddhists I’ve talked to shrug and say something like “words are unimportant,” which doesn’t help someone outside the faith to understand their beliefs. I would like to read such a book if you can name it for me.

“BTW, I was hoping for some rather factual information from Aldous…though, in retrospect, I guess that might have been foolish of me.”

Now that is funny.. thanks Stephanie. Aldous - factual? Only in the most circuitous way. I think Aldous’ traps for those quick to assume or presume are priceless. Aldous’ comments remind me of minefields for the politically unwary…

David,

“Part of Christianity” doesn’t work, because Christianity isn’t one entity or one organization (no matter how much some would like to claim it is). Most who follow “Christian teachings” don’t even believe it’s one religion, because some are Baptists, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), and if you confuse the any one with another there’s outrage.

Pat Robertson may be a self-professed Christian that represents a lot of other self-professed Christians, but I know he’s not a “part of” the Christianity I believe in. As I take the “do unto your neighbors…” bit quite seriously.

David,

“Aldous’ comments remind me of minefields for the politically unwary…”

****great BIG smile****

If only he wasn’t so good at it…

Stephanie said: “Pat Robertson may be a self-professed Christian that represents a lot of other self-professed Christians, but I know he’s not a “part of” the Christianity I believe in. As I take the “do unto your neighbors…” bit quite seriously.”

My guess would be the majority of Christians are like yourself, Stephanie and that is good, and very likely one of the reasons why Christianity thrives as one of the major religions in the world.

My point all along was simply that Christ’s teachings don’t equal the religion, and the religion does not equal the Churches. Christ never taught that the Church should horde massive wealth while billions starve and die of disease as is the case with the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, Christ taught just the opposite.

The Catholic religion does not always reflect the teachings of Christ, and the people who attend the churches don’t always reflect the teachings of Christ or the Church - look at divorce among Catholics. These are just some examples.

Christ said render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s for the soul is not of this earth and the kingdom Christians seek cannot be found in the state or its politics. So why is the church seeking to take the reins of government, both in European history as well as today in the US?

Are the affairs of state the province of Christ’s teachings and religion? Or, are the affairs of the mind and heart the key to the soul’s salvation and therefore the target of Christ’s teachings?

Pat Robertson claims to be God’s interpreter. Bush says God has instructed him on foreign policy. And some patients in prison psychiatric facilities say God told them to murder. Frankly, I think they all suffer from the same affliction. Using God to justify their personal agendas without regard for Christ or his teachings, at all.

David,

However, if the people in our government followed more of Christ’s teachings, then we would have a lot less problems in this world.

As for “My point all along was simply that Christ’s teachings don’t equal the religion, and the religion does not equal the Churches….”

What you are describing is CORRUPTION. Anything that mankind has to do with can be corrupted, be it people, religion, government or science. Anything that relies on HUMANS can be corrupted, but once it is corrupted it no longer is representative of the original intentions. That’s why I use the phrase “self-professed Christians,” because you can say you’re a Christian all you want, but if you don’t STRIVE to follow Christ’s teachings then it’s nothing but lip service. Many different people use many different means to obtain power, and Pat Robertson seems like a man using religion to obtain power. That, however, doesn’t mean that he is honesty a part of that religion.

Stephanie, one of the best in English to establish the founding and main tenets of Buddhism is a book called Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. You can read it online if you like.

The references your refer to from others about words being meaningless refers to a sect of Buddhism called Zen Buddhism. Enlightenment, it is generally agreed among Buddhists, cannot be comprehended with the mind of language which dichotomizes experience. But, most Buddhists also agree, that the path to enlightenment can be taught, and therefore, language is not futile or useless. Herman Hesse uses language as capably as any Buddhist master to describe what Buddhism is.

David,

I guess my biggest problem with your arguement (and I realize that you are not specifically arguing this) is that humanist use the fact that religion can be corrupted as an excuse to destroy religion, when it’s the people (which they hold so holy) that are corrupting the religion. People can and will take your arguement that “Pat Robertson is a representative of part of Christianity” as a means to discredit Christianity as a whole.

David,

Thank you. I won’t read it on-line, but I’ll get a copy asap.

Stephanie said: “However, if the people in our government followed more of Christ’s teachings, then we would have a lot less problems in this world.”

I would have to disagree here, Stephanie. I don’t think turn the other cheek would have been conducive to the Revolutionary War’s success, or that of WW I or WW II fascism, or ending the arms race with the Soviet Union.

No, Christ’s teachings are not meant for Ceasar’s world of politics between nations. They are meant for the individual person’s heart and mind to decide if they are going to commit their lives to the rewards of this earth, or to the rewards of Heaven. In Christ’s own teachings, these are different kingdoms and to attain the riches of one, a person must forego the riches of the other. One cannot serve two masters, he said.

David,

“more of” not all of…

Besides, I wouldn’t want to follow Cesaer at all. Look where that got the Romans.

You cannot exclude politicians from government because they hold to a specific faith.

Not that I support Pat Robertson’s idea in this case, but I do find it rather ironic that people on this thread would rather see a misguided “preacher” dead than a man who is killing his country’s chances at prosperity all for his own lust of power. Hugo Chavez is a terrible man, far worse than Pat Robertson, silly rantings and all.

Stephanie, I understand your concern and how humanists can twist it to their own ends. It is a valid concern. But it is a concern of no concern for me. I cannot be responsible for what others do with my understanding and reality as I see it.

I see no harm in atheism. I see no harm in the fundamental tenets of any of the major religions. I see harm in what people do with these concepts and understandings. One of my closest friends is an atheist, and he is one of the most honest and scrupulous people I have ever met. Another friend and revered philosophy professor of mine who taught comparative religion absolutely believed in God and the teachings of Christ. He too was one of the most honest and scrupulous people I have ever met.

I find Buddhism’s respect for all life, its reverence for all life, and its fundamental tenet that all life seeks to return to the bliss from which it came, one of the most honest teachings (for me) of what it means to be alive in this world. I can use that knowledge to offer salvation to other’s insecurities for a handsome price, (i.e. become a charlatan) or I can live my life as an example of one seeking the path back to God.

God exists whether humans do or not. Therefore God exists whether religion exists or not. Therefore, religion and God are separate things, for me. Religion is an invention of humans. God is his own invention whether humans exists or not.

Some people use religion to seek to overcome their separation from God on this earth, while others seek to use religion to govern others on this earth for their own purposes, not the least of which are ministers and priests who seek to make a living by pedalling religion to their congregations.

In my book, any person who seeks to use religion or atheism to shape politics or swing votes their way is a charlatan, whether they be Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or Humanist. This to me was one of the great wisdoms of Christ’s life. He did not seek to unseat the pagan Emperor of Rome. Whether the Roman Emperor existed or not, had no bearing on the relationship of each person to God.

One could be just as close to God and deserving of God’s blessings as a slave and food for lions as a nobleman whose charity and mercy reflected the goodness of God within them.

The basic function of governments is to organize people for common effort. The purpose of the teachings of all the great prophets, was to help humans understand their spiritual and immortal relationship with God, and to recognize that the immortality of that relationship supercedes all other events that may occur while in this physical realm world.

When one tries to marry the power of government with the power of religion, one secularizes and corrupts religion and redirects people’s attention from the truth at the heart of all great religions, from pantheism of the American Indians to Christianity and Buddhism and Islam, in my opinion. And that truth is the immortal relationship of creator and his creation.

Religions inevitably become political institutions seeking influence and power over the affairs of others on this earth. That is the foundation for my basic distrust of all Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples and their priests and priestesses.

Misha Tseytlin:

I find your comment amusing. Exactly how is Hugo Chavez a “Bad Man”? Did he kill anyone to get power? Did he steal his country’s wealth for his own benefit? What exactly did he do?

Just because you do not approve of Chavez’s Policies does NOT give you the right to judge him. The people of Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez freely in a honest election. It is their RIGHT to chose their own leader.

Besides, how can you be so sure Chavez’s plan won’t work? Its not as if Capitalism is a resounding success in South America.

Aldous, The Man is Pro-Venzuelan, by definition that means he is NOT pro-American. What else needs to be said?

Well, I guess one could also say that he refuses to be DICTATED to by the U.S. President. That of course makes him VERY anti-American.

Then there is this small matter of his using his country’s oil exports as a bartering chip and leverage on the international stage. Now, that is downright pinko-commie if the bartering and leverage is aimed at the U.S. It is only free-enterprise negotiation when the US and their allies exercise such behaviors.

Damn, Aldous, don’t you know nothing? OK, c’mon, let’s have some of your infamous and facetious ciruitous replies :-)

Aldous:

Just because you do not approve of Chavez’s Policies does NOT give you the right to judge him.

WHAT? Coming from you, based on your posts, this is nothing short of laughable. You have judged every conservative politician in America based on their policies in a brutal and ruthless manner. Explain please.

If we can not judge our leaders based on their policies, then on what basis do we judge?

What do you think will happen when South Americans and the Muslims in Asia turn on their TV and see Pat Robertson doing this?

Aldous actually has a really valid point. They see President Bush fawning all over Robertson - private meetings at the White House, etc. - then they hear Robertson ranting about assassinating Chavez. It’s not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

In fact, if you read Michael Scheuer’s excellent book, “Imperial Hubris”, he talks about how Robertson and his cohorts undermine our efforts in the Middle East every time they open their big yaps,

Muslim’s passionate love and reverence for God and His Prophet help explain the great importance they attach to negative remarks made by US Protestant clerics about Islam and the Prophet, especially by clerics publically associated with serving administrations.

…That Islamic clerics and fighters listen to and believe the comments of American clerics, who are often ignored at home, again emphasizes the importance of words. In Through Our Enemies Eyes, I stressed the need for the West to listen to bin Laden’s words and believe he means them.

Similarly, the words spoken by by US clerical and political leaders influence Muslims, many of whom still have the quaint idea that Western leaders say what they mean. Heard in a cultural context in which Islamic scholars often have the last, binding word, our Muslim foes accept the words [spoken by Robertson and other prominent US clerics] as the official US position.

Sure, we think Robertson is a buffoon. But when the President of the United States has frequent prayer sessions with him, Robertson gains stature as an influence on US policy in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Sorry to be a drip. Carry on with the lampooning.

Yeah, Chavez’s elections are so incredibly clean- just like Putin’s in Russia, right? The reasons Chavez is a bad leader are outlined in my post last August (http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001429.html). Just like Putin, he has no respect for individual rights,the rights of the opposition to disagree openly with his policies and the independence of hte judiciary. He is the power-mad man, who is willing to destroy his country’s chance at success for his own glory and power.

I find it sickening that just because people like Aldolous are sympathic with his socialism, they excuse his conduct. Keep excusing his crack down on opposition, his taking over the media, his destruction of the Venezuala constitution, all because you this socialism is a good idea. I wont excuse these things.

he has no respect for individual rights,the rights of the opposition to disagree openly with his policies and the independence of hte judiciary. He is the power-mad man, who is willing to destroy his country’s chance at success for his own glory and power.

Sounds a lot like the president of the US…. =/

Hi All:

Has any one else tired or become bored with this thread?
Just Asking?

As Always,
Wayne

Misha,

“I find it sickening that just because people like Aldolous are sympathic with his socialism, they excuse his conduct. Keep excusing his crack down on opposition, his taking over the media, his destruction of the Venezuala constitution, all because you this socialism is a good idea. I wont excuse these things.”

And to you I would say, so what!

If you want to institute change in Venezuala, go there, become a citizen.
We are Americans, we don’t call for asassinations of other world leaders. Our arogance is one of things that have us in trouble with the with the rest of the world at the moment.

Robertson is way over the line on this.

As to his flock, who is more foolish, the fool, or the fools that follow him?

Rocky,

“If you want to institute change in Venezuala, go there, become a citizen. We are Americans, we don’t call for asassinations of other world leaders. Our arogance is one of things that have us in trouble with the with the rest of the world at the moment.”

While I don’t have much of a problem with American’s instituting change in other countries, and don’t believe you need to become a citizen of that country to do so, I agree completely that the idea of assisination is not a good one. It is against the tenets of Robertson’s religion and it’s against international law, and therefore doubly wrong for him of all people to suggest it. If Robertson really cared about the Venezualans then he should call to his million listeners to bring aid to the people, not assisinate their ruler.

Though, some from the left have suggested that this is what we should have done to depose Saddam, which makes some of the outrage we are hearing now very interesting indeed.

Misha,

Whether or not you agree with Chavez’s political or economic policies, whether or not he acquired power legitimately, whether or not he’s a megalomaniacal dictator are all immaterial. Being a vainglorious but incompetent President who cheated to get elected is not a capital offense, which I’m sure is quite a relief to our own President.

The key point here is that Pat Robertson, who is a person with some degree of political influence in this country, has endorsed the commission of a federal felony on national television and has refused to apologize, amend, clarify or retract his statements. Moreover, although some members of his administration have done so, President Bush hasn’t condemned Robertson’s statements and assured the other nation’s of the world publicly that his government will not violate any domestic laws or international treaties in order to conduct it’s foreign policy.

Most importantly and ominously, however, our President has eschewed commenting upon Robertson’s imperialistic assertion that some or all of the free and independent nations of the Western Hemisphere lie within some kind of American colonial sphere of influence:

“… this is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen.

We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced.”(BTW, using the Monroe Doctrine to sanction American imperialism reveals Robertson’s complete ignorance of history. The purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to prevent the expansion of European imperialism in the Western Hemisphere, not condone American imperialism.)

In any event, compare Robertson’s sentiments with Chavez’s recent comments:

“It is our duty and our challenge to save our planet from the most powerful imperialism that has ever existed, i.e. US imperialism.”

IMO, the best way to depose an ideologue like Chavez is to prove him wrong to the Venezuelan people. Prove that he’s wrong politically, wrong economically and wrong internationally. We have numerous legal resources at our command that we can employ, but I would think that, at a minimum, our President must reassure the people of Venezuela that we do not have any imperialistic designs upon their country.

Although they disagree about its ethical validity, both Robertson and Chavez contend that the President of the United States believes that he has the right to supercede the popular will of the people of Venezuela in order to advance America’s narrow national interests. Hence, the only way to prove to the people of Venezuela that Chavez wrong is to use the bully pulpit to dispute the veracity of Robertson’s imperialistic assertions. Loudly. And in Spanish.

He might not convince everybody because actions speak louder than words, but at least it’s a start.

Most importantly, silence implies assent, and we cannot afford to give Sr. Chavez any more grist for his delusional messianic mill.

Rocky,

“As to his flock, who is more foolish, the fool, or the fools that follow him?”

How about the fools who honestly believe he represents the lot of us?

Rocky:

I don’t follow Robertson, nor do I listen to him. I do however agree with his base premise of Christianity.

That having been said, his comments about assassinating Chavez are abhorrent. I recognize that politicians do discuss covert action, including assassinations, despite the fact they are against US law. In fact, some in WB on the anti war side have suggested that the US should have assassinated Saddam Hussein, rather than overthrow him.

But a preacher of the Gospel should not enter into such discussion. I’d suspect he didn’t think much before he spoke, which is bad, but not quite as bad as if he actually DID think before he spoke.

Robertson is doing for Chavez (in a small way) what McCarthy did for Communists. It is always good to be persecuted by a buffoon. It allows you to draw attention away from your real failings.

This will go on only because Chavez and lefties all over the place want it to go on. Everybody knows that Robertson’s fatwa carries no weight with anyone who might actually have the will or capacity to carry it out. It is a toothless dog that won’t hunt. But it will be quoted in order to compare the U.S. to terrorists by the moral equivalency school of anti-Americanism.

A democratic nation has the right to elect its own leaders. Everyone (foreign and domestic) has the right to judge and criticize those leaders. Business people will make judgments and investment decision based on the governments. Unfortunately, there is some lag time involved between cause and effect but I expect that with leadership like Hugo’s, Venezuela’s economy will be go down the toilet, even if the artificial boost of high oil prices postpones the day of reckoning. Guys like Hugo are like whiskey. At first everything feels good, but the headache comes later. If the country remains democratic, he will be gone soon enough without the need of drastic measures.

Why don’t we just take a note out of Tony Blair’s book and ship Robertson out of the country, say to France?

Stephanie,

“humanist use the fact that religion can be corrupted as an excuse to destroy religion, when it’s the people (which they hold so holy) that are corrupting the religion. People can and will take your arguement that “Pat Robertson is a representative of part of Christianity” as a means to discredit Christianity as a whole.”

I don’t see Pat Roberts as a part of Christianity. He is part of his redefined Christianity.He has interpreted the Bible in a way that allows him to distort and manipulate the religion he professes to love. He can now use God to judge others and condemn those he sees as different, to death. He is no different than the Islamic radicals who preach distorted, vile Anti-American messages to their followers.
That is the problem. Not the corruption of Christianity but the interpretation of it, as it is with all religions.I use the Bible to teach my children that we must love all god’s creatures and we should not kill animals. The guy down the road uses the Bible to teach his children that we have a right to hunt animals.
Who’s right?
It’s all in the interpretation.
That is why religion and government should not mix.
Historically people have done some pretty bad things based on their interpretation of the churches teachings,the Bible and Quran and some of the kindest and bravest acts have been done in the name of some god or another.

Ask yourself, why did a majority of his(Roberts) millions of followers vote for Bush?
A shared ideology?
Bush Sucks!

Stephanie,

Men like Robertson, Dobson, Baker, and their ilk have hi-jacked Christianity. These charletans have done nothing to further any cause but their own. These are the money traders of our time.

“Why don’t we just take a note out of Tony Blair’s book and ship Robertson out of the country, say to France?”

Because, unlike in Britian, we claim to believe in freedom of speach for all of our citizens.

All televangelists are a bunch of self serving carnival barkers. It is disgraceful that Bush and his religous right associate themselves with people like this. It is a good thing that the founding fathers had the foresight to create a seperation between church and state. If it were up to Robertson the whole world would be in flames and he would justify it through his fire and brimstone rhetoric. I don’t particularly like Chavez, but what Robertson said is no better than the fatwa that Iranian ayatollahs issued for solomon rushdie. It concerns me that Iraq is going to become an islamic state. What if clerics like al sadr start issuing their own fatwas in accordance with islam which can be interpreted 1 million different ways and then selected to suit their particular position. There needs to be a provision that states that clerics cannot issue their own version of justice (or give any other orders) and that only justice can come from the government. This is a slippery slope.

John,

The sad thing about the people who follow these “Carvival Barkers”(I really like that one) is that all you have to do is invoke gods name and these sheep jump on board.
That is precisely what happened in the 04 election.
Quote the Bible to argue against gay marriage, shout a few rhetorical statements about abortion, say God a few more times and you too can be President.
Hopefully Roberts has shined enough light on his hypocritical organization that true Christians will walk away

Andre:

Your comments bely a problem you have with with Christianity, or more specifically, with Christians. You seem to be saying that to be Christian is to be an unthinking simple minded “sheep”. Yet you claim to use the Bible in raising your children—I guess I don’t see the connection between the two ideas.

As a Christian, I am against homosexual marriage and am against abortion. My stance on abortion stems less, I think, from a religious standpoint than from the point of view that I value life, and I consider a baby in the womb to be life. One need not be a Christian to value life.

I believe that I can and do make intelligent and thoughtful decisions, and can back up my thought process logically. That does not mean that you have to agree with my conclusions, but to consider them less valuable simply because of my faith would be a prejudiced viewpoint on your part.

I voted for George Bush not solely because he is a Christian, but because I believe more in the direction that he spoke of than I did in John Kerry, who spoke of nearly every direction. Bush being a Christian was a factor in my decision, but only one of many—-just as it should be. I’m sure that when John Kennedy ran, there were some who voted for him in part because he was Catholic—and some voted against him for the same reason.

Lastly, Andre, the person in question is Pat RobertSON, not Roberts, lest people be confused that you might be referring to SCOTUS nominee John Roberts.

If we can not judge our leaders based on their policies, then on what basis do we judge?

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 24, 2005 09:11 AM

Why, on their sex lives, of course!

David,

This is a part of what Christianity is, bigoted, hypocritical, and self-centered without anchors in the teachings of Christ. One million Robertson followers can’t be wrong.

O yes they can. Unfortunetly a lot of people who call themselves Christians aren’t. I’m not say that none of these one million followers are Christians, but I’ll bet most aren’t. Though they may think they are.
True Christianity has never been about any of these thing’s. A true Christian will love God first. When you have that straight then there’s no room or time for these things. And for that matter you won’t want time for them.
Ture Chirstianity is about Christ and the things he taught and commanded.
I would personally have to wonder about someone who professes to be a Christian and then advocate assassinating someone.
I would also have to wonder about someone who is bigoted, and self centered. However, I try not to pass judgement on them.

Christianity is a religion.
Wrong! Christianity is a way of life, and DOSENOT teach intolerance, hate, greed, racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other isms.
True Christianity teaches Christ, and ALL the things he taught and commaned. He never taught or commanded any of the above things.

joebagodonuts
As a Christian, I am against homosexual marriage and am against abortion. My stance on abortion stems less, I think, from a religious standpoint than from the point of view that I value life, and I consider a baby in the womb to be life. One need not be a Christian to value life.

I agree with you on these issues, however I don,t hate homosexuals, or abortionist, or women that have abortions. I hope you don’t either.

Rocky,
Gee, and I thought to be a Christian meant to be Christ-like.

It is, unfortunetly people like Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, and Jerry Falwell give it a bad name with their unChrist like actions and remarks.

Let the shock and awe ensue Robertson actually apologized!

Well, it’s not much of an apology, but better than some were willing to hope for.

Andre,

“I don’t see Pat Roberts(on) as a part of Christianity.”

That, paired with Ron Brown’s description of a Christian, was my point.

“That is why religion and government should not mix.”

We’ll have to disagree here. While I firmly believe that religion shouldn’t control government and government shouldn’t control religion, that is not to say that they shouldn’t mix. Mixing my faith and my politics is as unavoidable as mixing my faith with my child-rearing or my faith and my writing. My faith is a large part of who I am and I do not believe compartmentalizing oneself is an effective way to live ones life.

Rocky,

“Men like Robertson, Dobson, Baker, and their ilk have hi-jacked Christianity. These charletans have done nothing to further any cause but their own. These are the money traders of our time.”

Robertson, as I’ve said, I only really know from this incident and am likely to agree. Dobson, we’ll have to disagree on him. While I’ve primarily read his parenting books, I also support his efforts to get ultra-sound machines in abortion clinics so that the women who choose abortion have a chance to know what it is they’re destroying before they do. And, I have no idea who Baker is. If I know something is sensationalist crap, be it Robertson-style or Moore-ish, I don’t waste my time on it. Besides, I don’t get cable and televangelist shows are boring.

joe & Ron,

Bravo, both of you!

Pat Robertson is just following standard Republican doctrine. After all, the last time South America freely voted a leftist President was Chile’s Salvador Allende. Thanks to the wisdom of Conservatives, Allende was assasinated and Augusto Pinochet installed as President. Under Pinochet’s US-Friendly rule, 3,000 Chileans Disappeared and 27,000 more were tortured.

This is what Republicans mean when they say “Freedom” and “Democracy”. Its happening to Iraq even as we speak…

Ron:

I agree with you regarding Baker and Swaggart, a little less so with the others. Sometimes Christians forget that one of the prime lessons of Christ is to love one another. Sometimes anti-Christians forget that hating actions is a distinctly separate issue from hating people.

In that way, I of course do not hate homosexuals or women who have had abortions. Nor do I hate people who have been promiscuous, had adulterous affairs or made other mistakes in life. These are actions that are separate from the person themself. I do hate promiscuity, adultery etc.

I’ll admit to not always having charitable thoughts or even actions towards others, but that is my humanity. I’m nowhere near perfection. But that doesn’t prevent me from striving for it, no matter how elusive it is.

Ron, one additional thought. You said that “Unfortunetly a lot of people who call themselves Christians aren’t.” I’d disagree slightly. I think its more that a lot of Christians simply fail at living out true Christianity. It doesnt prevent them from being a Christian, but it might make them an imperfect, or even a bad, Christian.

I voted for George Bush not solely because he is a Christian, but because I believe more in the direction that he spoke of than I did in John Kerry, who spoke of nearly every direction.

So you eschewed the Christian spin for the GOP spin. Good for you! :)

jbod,

“Ron, one additional thought. You said that “Unfortunetly a lot of people who call themselves Christians aren’t.” I’d disagree slightly. I think its more that a lot of Christians simply fail at living out true Christianity. It doesnt prevent them from being a Christian, but it might make them an imperfect, or even a bad, Christian.”

Sorry Joe, Christianity may be an ideal to strive for, but it is more than an attitude. Christians either live a life that emulates Christ or they don’t deserve to call themselves Christians.
You cannot steal from Peter to pay Paul on Friday, confess it on Saturday, go to Church on Sunday and expect that life is going to be different on Monday.

Look, in the stories about Christ, he was not perfect. He felt anger, and, if you belive the Gospel of Thomas, he felt lust.

If you want to be a Christian in the truest form of the word, striving to be a perfect Christian doesn’t mean cheating on your taxes, or keeping money that you were over paid or even speaking ill of those you dispise.
Christianity is a true commitment, not some half ass “I’m a Christian when I want to be” attitude.

Pat Robertson may have been a Christian once, but not any more. He has been corrupted by the power and the money, he has aquired.

Being a Christian doesn’t mean that you blame Sept. 11th on homosexuality, or women’s rights, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you can call for the asassination of a foreign leader, even if you dissagree with his policies.

Was out earlier & just saw that Pat “Open Mouth, Insert Foot” Robertson actually quasi-apologized.

Hallelujah and the saints be praised!

Apparently, “take him out” didn’t mean “assassinate him”.

Interesting non-apology. This guy should be in politics. Ooops, I forgot. He already is.

Why’d he do it? I’m guessing he read this post and realized that his days might be numbered unless he saw the light and shifted his mouth into reverse. The WB strikes again. Another notch in the old belt. Let the transgressors beware: the WB is watching, and it never sleeps.

I only have one question. Does that mean my reason #3 is still valid?

“3 - We should take out everybody whose first name is ‘Marion’.”

If anybody out there knows any “Marion”s, I suggest that you tell them that they should be afraid - very afraid.

I’ll sleep like a baby tonight knowing that Hugo’s going to wake up tomorrow.

(You know what? Now that I think about it, we should probably take out everybody named “Hugo”, too.)

PS - Stephanie,

You really don’t know who Jim Bakker is? Jim, Tammy Faye & Jessica Hahn? Looks like you got some serious googling to do, m’lady.

Gee, Chuck, that would include Marion Berry A US Rep from Arkansas, Mayor Marion Barry Mayor of DC and even Marion Robert Morrison, John Wayne to you and me, if he was still alive.

Rocky,

Now that’s the spirit! Looks like we’re batting 3 for 3 so far. (Except killing John Wayne again seems somewhat redundant to me.) Other than that, thanks for the tips.

“Making a list, and checking it twice … “

Rocky,

Just had another thought.

Are there any “Marion”s out there whose surname isn’t “Berry” or “Barry”? I’d hate to think that Halle Berry might misunderstand and think that we’re out to get her!

Chuck,

There are,

Marion Meadows, saxophonist

Marion Zimmer Bradley, writer

Marion Ross, voice of Grandma Squarepants

Marion Cotillard, French actress

Marion Brown, Jaz Sax

Marion Jones, sprinter

and let’s not forget Marion Blakey, Chief Exec. FAA.

This was just a start, there were 13.9 million references in a google search for Marion.

Chuck,

I mentioned the name Jim Bakker to my husband and this is what I got.

Do you know why Jim Bakker spells his name with two Ks? Three would be too obvious.

Googling in progress.

Rocky,

Marion Zimmer Bradley is also passed away. At least, that’s what her magazine said.

Sorry.

So far, according to Wikipedia, Robertson screwwed over Bakker to form the 700 Club. So, you know, he might have cause to be on this thread.

Sorry, “according to Wikipedia” was supposed to be linked, but I got distracted.

“They attributed much of their success to decisions early on to accept all denominations and to refuse no one regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or criminal record.”

This part doesn’t sound so bad.

p.s. play-by-play is for others who may not know the name

Stephanie,

Beware, this quite blue in it’s report but it is pretty to the point

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jim-bakker/

“Jim got snagged funneling $265,000 in hush money to virginal church secretary Jessica Hahn, in order to cover up their adulterous tryst. Suddenly the Bakkers became pariahs. All of their friends deserted them. Even fellow Assemblies of God minister Jimmy Swaggart took some unnecessary potshots, just for fun and just to be a dick. Swaggart went on CNN and told Larry King that Jim was a “cancer in the body of Christ.””

Chuck,

So you know, when the whole Jessica Hahn thing went down (at least the pay-off part) I was eight years old. Thus, the ignorance.

Wikipedia has that stuff (though Falwell was the one calling him “cancer” there), too.

Conclusion: He was punished by the state, he publicly repented of his sins…and he should have stuck with books instead of starting a new show.

Rocky,

“I sorrowfully acknowledge that seven years ago … I was wickedly manipulated by treacherous former friends and colleagues who victimized me with the aid of a female confederate. They conspired to betray me into a sexual encounter at a time of great stress in my marital life. … I was set up as part of a scheme to co-opt me and obtain some advantage for themselves over me in connection with their hope for position in the ministry.”

This quote from the rotten site does implicate him further, but they don’t sufficiently site it to be verifiable.

Steph,

So this how Robertson got to be the host on the 700 club, and as a result his statements Monday went out to a world wide audience.

Apology or not, the genie is out of the bottle.

Robertson said he was misinterpreted and never said he advocated assasinating Chavez to his 700 Club membership.

It’s on tape, Pat! You did so say you thought we should just go ahead and assasinate him. It’s on tape playing on the airwaves, your face, your mouth moving, your words coming out of that lying hole you call a mouth.

But, Pat is like Bush. He knows his constitutents will believe whichever side of his contradictory statements he tells them to believe.

Priceless.

David,

Off-topic, I know, but I just can’t help but mention that Cindy Sheehan recently did the same thing. It’s not just a Bush thing, it’s a people thing.

More on Bakker…

“Appears to lack discernment necessary to tell apart orthodoxy from heresy.”

Stephanie, I agree, but, Cindy Sheehan does not put herself in the role of leader of the free world nor minister to a million Christians. She represents herself as a mother with a dead son and nothing more. I am not excusing her inconsistencies, but, I will be far more critical and less understanding of them when they come from leaders who have chosen that role for themselves in the name of helping others.

David,

The main difference between Sheehan’s efforts to lead and Robertson’s is success. He’s had more time and more success than she has, but she is still trying to lead an anti-war effort.

Seems to me others cast her into that role. She simply showed up demanding answers.

And the million viewers didn’t cast Robertson in that role?

Rocky:

My belief is that one becomes a Christian when they forge a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Once forged, the relationship never unforges, meaning the person is always a Christian. They might not act like one, they might not talk like one, they might not even profess to be one, but they still are. That is MY definition for being a Christian.

We have the free will to act as we will, and as humans, we will always fall short. Just as alcoholics sometimes backslide, so too do Christians. They call someone who has become sober a “recovering alcoholic”—-perhaps we should look at Christians as being “recovering sinners”.

Rocky, I’m not saying you have to agree with my definition, though its a pretty widely held one. I’m just trying to help you understand the context of my earlier comments to Ron Brown.

By the way, I don’t view Christ as having been tempted by lust—-perhaps you can show me something where you think he was. Also, I don’t consider his anger in the temple to have been sin, but rather a righteous anger. I’d not care to try to define the difference (it would take too long and I probably don’t have the proper understanding to do it well), but I do think there is a difference.

joebagodonuts
I’ll admit to not always having charitable thoughts or even actions towards others, but that is my humanity. I’m nowhere near perfection. But that doesn’t prevent me from striving for it, no matter how elusive it is.

Welcome to the club, none of us are perfect and are guilty of this at times.

Rocky,
Look, in the stories about Christ, he was not perfect. He felt anger, and, if you belive the Gospel of Thomas, he felt lust.

Being angry doesnot necessarily mean that your sinning. The Bible say in Psalms 7:11 that “God is angry with the wicked every day.” it also speaks several time about God being angry with the Children of Isreal because of their sins. Chirst was angry when he saw the money changers in the temple. He said they had turned the house of God into a den of theives.
A Chirstian can be angry about things that are going on that are against Gods word. The Bible says in Ephesians 4:26 ” Be angry and sin not: let not the son go down upon your wrath.”
One more thing, The Gospel of Thomas isnot in the Bible, so I don’t except it as the Word of God.

If you want to be a Christian in the truest form of the word, striving to be a perfect Christian doesn’t mean cheating on your taxes, or keeping money that you were over paid or even speaking ill of those you dispise.
Christianity is a true commitment, not some half ass “I’m a Christian when I want to be” attitude.

Being a Christian doesn’t mean that you blame Sept. 11th on homosexuality, or women’s rights, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you can call for the asassination of a foreign leader, even if you dissagree with his policies.

YOUR SO RIGHT ON BOTH POINTS

jeobagodonuts,
My belief is that one becomes a Christian when they forge a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Once forged, the relationship never unforges, meaning the person is always a Christian. They might not act like one, they might not talk like one, they might not even profess to be one, but they still are. That is MY definition for being a Christian.

Mine to, but there are those that say they have a personal relationship with Jesus but don’t. And I believe that alot of them think they’re Christians but they’re not. These are the ones I was talking about earlier.

Ron:

I’d agree with you. That’s why I’m glad I’m not the determiner of who is and who is not a Christian. I can only assess someone’s words and actions; I’ll leave the final determination to the one who can assess their heart.

Joe,

“I’d agree with you. That’s why I’m glad I’m not the determiner of who is and who is not a Christian. I can only assess someone’s words and actions; I’ll leave the final determination to the one who can assess their heart.”

I agree that there are true Christians out there, somewhere. I hope that you would agree that they are not those out there that are proclaiming themselves the loudest.

Rocky:

I told you what I consider a Christian to be, and who I consider to be capable of determining someone’s Christianity. Loudness or silence doesn’t really matter much, though of course, sometimes those who speak loudly do so to cover up something else. Sometimes, though, those who speak loudly simply have a lot to share.

In the former group, you might include someone like a Jimmy Swaggart. In the latter, perhaps a Billy Graham.

In both cases, God gets to be the final arbiter. My opinion and yours have no sway.

“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

I believe televangelists would easily fit the Biblical description of hypocrites.

Stephanie,

Thank you, I rest my case.

Chavez says his government will take legal action against Robertson for his calling for Chavez’s assasination. Open mouth, insert law suit. Extradition papers, anyone? I am all for it. :-)

David:
If your referring to Extraditing “Pat Robertson” To Venezuela…I say put him on the first plane headed that way….We just Launched a war in(2003) Iraq because in 1994 Saddam Tried to have Bush I Killed. Well, we should at least have the same Respect for the ELECTED Leaders of the world. What kind of example are we setting? I would even buy the ticket myself.

Just My Thoughts,
As Always,
Wayne

BTW, according to Pat Robertson, who is God punishing on the Gulf Coast? Bet it has nothing to do with them being red states.