Post by: Werewolf on August 23, 2005, 06:37:23 AM
Quote
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a terrific danger to the United States.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on The 700 Club it was the United States duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.
Televangelist calls Venezuelan president a terrific danger to U.S.Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on The 700 Club it was the United States duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.
So how is this nut job any different from Islamic mullahs calling for Jihad and the killing of infidels? Wonder when the Pat Robertson Schools for Christian Supremacy and World Domination will start springing up?
This kind of crap spewing forth from a so called religious leader makes me sick - and to think its coming out of the USA is even worse. But then I guess the 1st Amendment gives him the right to spew his crap the same as it gives the mullahs the right to spew theirs.
[shakes head] Makes me wonder if in 20 years if civilization will still be around...
Post by: Guest on August 23, 2005, 07:27:37 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 23, 2005, 08:17:34 AM
Additionally, Robertson doesn't have any real influence in his government, other than as a well-known person, probably with some influential friends. So, what Robertson says is only the viewpoint of a private citizen.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 23, 2005, 09:21:12 AM
Post by: Justin on August 23, 2005, 09:56:26 AM
Post by: BryanP on August 23, 2005, 12:46:37 PM
This sounds like a job for the Patriot Act.
Post by: Antibubba on August 23, 2005, 12:56:55 PM
Post by: Glock Glockler on August 23, 2005, 12:57:07 PM
The Jihadist Mullahs want Muslims to kill people because they're infidels (non-muslims).
Robinson is advocating taking out an oppressive communist dictator because of his actions, not because of his beliefs.
Robinson is 100% correct.
Post by: stevelyn on August 23, 2005, 01:55:57 PM
It isn't any different. Just another religious fanatic by another name.
It looks like Taliban Pat has exposed himself and his ilk for what I believe they have been all along.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 23, 2005, 05:52:57 PM
Post by: stevelyn on August 23, 2005, 06:51:33 PM
No that comment alone dosen't make him a religious fanatic. It just confirms he's an idiot with a knack for making money off ancient Hebrew mythology.
What makes him a fanatic is that he and his ilk have been trying their best to turn this country into a theocracy.
Post by: jefnvk on August 23, 2005, 06:54:40 PM
Post by: roo_ster on August 23, 2005, 07:06:19 PM
What he said was of a secular nature regarding Chavez, who has let no opportunity pass to voice his hatred and opposition to the USA. Chavez & his buddy Castro are doing their best to muck up both US policy & interests, but also the other countries in Latin America. I would not regret reading of their demise.
As gov't policy, having him whacked has some negatives.
If you read his words in context, Robertson essentially says that Chavez accuses the US of trying to whack him and that if we're going to get hte blame, we might as well do the deed. It does make sense, though I think I'd prefer to hear it from a hard-boiled policy type like Zbignew "I'd like to buy a vowel" Brzynski*.
* No guarantee of spelling accuracy is given or implied in the case of slavic names with too few vowels.
Post by: Glock Glockler on August 24, 2005, 03:48:23 AM
Yeah, wasting those communist dictators will take us right down the path of the Taliban.
Post by: matis on August 24, 2005, 06:41:49 AM
"... It just confirms he's an idiot with a knack for making money off ancient Hebrew mythology."
_________________________________________________________
Right Stevelyn.
As opposed to current mythology:
-multiculturalism
-diversity
-deconstructionism
-radical feminism
-"war/violence never solved anything"
-victimology
-gobal warming (used to be global freezing -- but -- come back in ten years)
-fairness
-mindless egalitarianism
-moral equivalence
-competiton is bad
-the rich exploit the poor
-rich nations cause poor nations' poverty
-government schooling
-guns and gun people are evil
-feelings trump free-speech
-(I can come up with more if I put my mind to it)
Much horror has been perpetrated in the name of religion.
Yet, somehow, modern, secular methods seem always to end in concentration camps and gulags.
I'll stick to ancient Hebrew mythology, thank you very much.
At least they knew what human nature is and had methods for refining and directing it.
If you're honest about it, you will admit that YOUR values come from this "ancient Hebrew mythology". Western civilization rests upon it.
quote:
FWIW, I'm not a big Robertson fan. I am quite cool on televangelists.
__________________________________________________________
Me, too, Jfruser. But I agree with Pat Robertson on this.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 24, 2005, 01:16:08 PM
except that I have misgivings about the strategic desirability of Robertson's suggestion.
Post by: Ron on August 24, 2005, 05:02:47 PM
You guys are pathetic, just waiting for some has been "Christian" leader to make some inflammatory statement to "prove" your point.
I don't even get exercised over the anti-christian rhetoric anymore.
The fruit of the seculurists speaks for itself.
Post by: Sindawe on August 24, 2005, 05:33:33 PM
Quote
The fruit of the seculurists speaks for itself.
As do the fruits of organized religion. Quote
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
-Denis Diderot
-Denis Diderot
Post by: The Rabbi on August 24, 2005, 05:46:19 PM
Post by: Sindawe on August 24, 2005, 05:52:57 PM
Quote
Organized religion generally opposes fruits.
Yeppers. Must have a strong liking for mutton stew, since organized religion tends to favor mindless vegetables and sheep.
Post by: Ron on August 24, 2005, 06:10:47 PM
Quote
Yeppers. Must have a strong liking for mutton stew, since organized religion tends to favor mindless vegetables and sheep.
Your hubris and condescension tell me all I need to know about your belief system. 
Post by: Sindawe on August 24, 2005, 06:28:07 PM
Quote
Your hubris and condescension tell me all I need to know about your belief system.
Which is one that does not advocate going out and killing people simply because they believe in the "Wrong" tribal god image. Or the "wrong flavor" of the shared god image.
Post by: BryanP on August 25, 2005, 02:25:08 AM
Hee. What a maroon. I've never liked that hypocritical twit or any of his cohorts.
Sindawe, bashing religion itself is about as useful as the whackos like Robertson blasting people for their beliefs or lack thereof. There are good and decent people involved in organized religion helping people and doing good works. They're just not the ones we see on television.
Not that I'm above baiting hypocrites. I just about gave some of them apoplexy once when they were arguing about whether people of various faiths could go to heaven or if only specific Christians or just Christians AND Jews or what not could get in. They were not doing this in a nice way - it was obvious they were justifying saying that only a specific subset of Christians could be "saved" and everyone else was doomed to Hellfire.
They asked my opinion and I said "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Aztecs or Hottentots, it all amounts to a bunch of people arguing about who has the coolest imaginary friend." They suddenly had a new target for their ire. Whether I believed what I just said to them wasn't the point. The eye-bulging rage on their faces was worth it. 
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 25, 2005, 03:37:44 AM
Sindawe and GoRon are both partly right and partly wrong. Religion, fundamentalism, secularism; none of these things lead directly to the inquisition or the pogrom. Sadly, human beings can turn the most beautiful and compassionate of philosophies into a reason for cruelty.
Quote
some has-been "Christian" leader
Pretty much. He's not exactly on the cutting edge of the Christian sub-culture.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 25, 2005, 04:55:38 AM
Quote from: Sindawe
Quote
Organized religion generally opposes fruits.
Yeppers. Must have a strong liking for mutton stew, since organized religion tends to favor mindless vegetables and sheep.Post by: Sindawe on August 25, 2005, 05:13:34 AM
Quote
You must have missed the millions of people killed by those religious fanatics Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Mao Tze Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Catro, etc etc
Nope, did not miss that. Their religion was worship of the State, often with themselves as the embodiment of that State.
Post by: Azrael256 on August 25, 2005, 05:27:05 AM
Quote
Their religion was worship of the State
Bingo. 20th Century nationalism (and 21st, if you count some) is the new idolatry.I just started my Tillich class. Can you tell?
Post by: roo_ster on August 25, 2005, 05:27:30 AM
Quote
Nope, did not miss that. Their religion was worship of the State, often with themselves as the embodiment of that State.
Ahh, the Slick Willy Gambit. Redefine the word to suit one's current needs* or get into semantic arguments over the meaning of the word "is." It can be effective with some audiences.* "Religion" now means anything bad or I consider immoral, up to and including stomping fluffy puppies with Birkinstocks. I reserve the right to re-define as I deem necessary to bolster my eroding rhetorical position.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 25, 2005, 06:42:34 AM
Post by: Guest on August 25, 2005, 06:50:36 AM
Quote from: Sindawe
Quote
You must have missed the millions of people killed by those religious fanatics Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Mao Tze Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Catro, etc etc
Nope, did not miss that. Their religion was worship of the State, often with themselves as the embodiment of that State.You realize that by this logic athiests worship the absence of a god right?
Post by: Sindawe on August 25, 2005, 07:11:51 AM
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.\
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
Quote
You realize that by this logic athiests worship the absence of a god right?
Yes, and from the encounters I've had with atheists over the years, your assesment is correct.I've no problem with FAITH that an individual may or may not have. It is when people surrender their wits to the will of a supposed learned or enlightened person with out question that the problems arise. Hence my issue with ORGANIZED religion, the source of so much misery, hypocrisy and madness in our world. Nationalism/Statism (what some here have labled secularism) has only killed so many more in the last century because our knowledge of the means to kill each other were so much more "advanced" in the last century than in those prior.
Quote
Jfruser, I've learned not to expect more. For some people "religion" is just a dirty word that connotes hypocrisy, dishonesty, sexism, and herd instinct. About the way I view "Libertarian" in other words.
Well, you're still young Grasshopper, the wisdom will come in time. Be it in this life, or one that follows.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 25, 2005, 05:26:22 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
I've no problem with FAITH that an individual may or may not have. It is when people surrender their wits to the will of a supposed learned or enlightened person with out question that the problems arise. Hence my issue with ORGANIZED religion, the source of so much misery, hypocrisy and madness in our world.
ORGANIZED religion causes people to follow along blindly? I thought that was because most people are intellectually lazy. So if throughout history no one had agreed on religious matters, or worshipped together, then there would have been less madness, hypocricy and misery? I don't see why. Maybe I don't understand the alternative you are proposing.