wow! that's not very christian!

Old news.


"Say! We landed on the moon! That's great!"

 

Very true.

 

I do not know enough about this Mr. Robertson to comment on his specific case other than to point out that somebody out there must be listenening to him for him to have amassed as much money as he has.

I feel more comfortable commenting on the subject of vocal minority groups in general. Mr. Segroves, I have no reason to doubt that you are correct in stating that persons on Mr. Robertson's ilk seem to have a select appeal as far as attracting fanatical followers. However, I feel compelled to also say that sometimes, simply neglecting what seem like a few loudmouths is not always the best policy as history is replete with small bands of loudmouths who were allowed to influence events all out of proportion to their percentage of the population.

Also, while silence may mean exactly what you say - that nobody cares or that the miscreant is indeed "below the radar" of the masses - it can also be taken for a form of tacit approval that is smart enough to keep itself quiet. At least, that's what some non-Muslims try to claim about Muslims whenever some idiot fundamentalist mullah spouts off or some deluded punk blows up himself and a busload of people in Israel. Then it's "The Muslims" this and "The Muslims" that as if all Islam is one hive-minded monolith.

Again, I do not know what is the case in this exact situation. I do know that when under stress, any population that used to merely sympathize or at tolerate an extremist can be pushed into his camp. Witness the events following the attacks on the World Trade Center that turned some normal, peaceable Americans into fire-breathing supporters of President Bush's wars, ready to believe his most ludicrous "arguments" for whatever he wanted to do regardless of how far it was from exacting any kind of true "justice" concerning the attack. I am not referring to the Mannyfreshstunnas of the USA, either. I am speaking of the rational people who would normally have not so easily have suspended their critical reasoning faculties in times of lesser shock and stress.

What does this mean for Mr. Robertson? I don't know. Maybe he's a harmless nutter worth a few chuckles. Maybe, under the right circumstances, he could be dangerous. I've learned not to take such people too lightly, however. It was easy to laugh at Lenin when he was just a powerless crank in exile in Zurich, after all.

 

What? I'm sure there is a jewish carpenter somewhere who's got a beef with CNN, really who doesn't? His name is probably Mannyfreshstunna and we're all doomed to hell.

Anyway Seagroves. My point in the other thread was you guys got all in a tiff over my Christian Fundies at it again routine. But nobody seems to care that all Saudis, Palestinians or Muslims in general get played out here as Islamofacists.

Back to the topic of Robertson. I was speaking to some friends this weekend who work on the hill. They say he made his comments as a result of the State Department's backing the ouster of Chuck Taylor in Liberia. The reason Robertson's so pro-Chuck Taylor is he has dirty hands in the illegal diamond trade there.

But again, that's what was said over beers.

 

Please name the country that is a Christian theocracy or has a large segment of the Christian church arguing for theocratic government. There is a huge distinction between the impact of blowhards like Robertson versus the spread of nationalized Islam.

Prove the diamond connection and you can make good money publishing off a message board as well as on one.

 

Robertson twenty years ago wasn't that bad. I mean, you may not agree with him, but at least he made some semblance of sense. I think he's literally gone senile. His staying on the air is a disgrace to him and to Christians as a whole. He needs to find the grace to retire. ASAP.

 

The fuss over the ten commandments in Alabama is just a sign of what a 'certain segment' want in this country. This is a very small, but loud minority.

But to answer your question. Most nations in Europe and by default the Spanish colonies in the Americas were at one time ruled in-directly by the papacy. The christian nations began the move away from theocracy driven government about the time of the Tudors, (all brought about by a man who hated is wife, go figure!). Islamic nations are getting there as well. I predict full democracy in Iran within 20 years, hopefully much sooner.

 

This is my favorite part of the article:

Now, if Robertson were Muslim, wouldn't he be in jail by now?

 

Easily. But I'll stop here to avoid my further immolation from the Christofascists (THAT'S A JOKE).

 

Careful. The people in my church wear brown shirts. Don't answer the knock on your door this evening. * for the sarcasm-impaired*

 

So if he were a dark skinned, young Muslim guy would the right wingers be reacting differently to his call for nuking the state dept?

Yes, we all agree he is wacko, but some of us see a double standard when it comes to the treatment of religious nuts from different sects.

 

True, but we all know that Islamic religious wackos were the ones behind the 9/11 attacks. While Christian fundamentalist wackos have committed attrocities such as killing abortion doctors, bombing abortion clinics, etc.... I don't think you can hang the deaths of 3,000 or more innocents on them. I don't know if it's a double standard when the evidence points to one sect being more dangerous (and willing to sacrifice their lives) than another.

While Pat Robertson's words are troubling, he's a known windbag.

I don't think this is a double standard, because we are comparing apples and oranges. Christian fundamentalists have yet to commit an overt act of terrorism against our government. If Pat Robertson were threatening abortion clinics, then I think it would be important to censure, jail, charge him, whatever for his words. There is a history of violence and seems to be a more clear threat, but I think this is different. He should definitely receive flack for this, but the government isn't upholding a double standard in this instance.

 

Every religion have its wackos, whichever it is. More people have been killed in the name of God than any major disease or natural disaster have.

Jesus was killed by religious nuts. If Jesus would come now, wackos like Robertson would probably be the first ones to ask for his head. Of course, If Jesus lived today he'd be a liberal, heck, a Green Party type liberal even.

 

So it's okay to kill abortion doctors? What if Al-Qaida had flown a plane into an abortion clinic would that have been better?

When Eric Rudolph set off the Olympic Park bomb I guess that's what exactly?

 

Jesus was a socialist.

 

But isn't it true that more acts of domestic terrorism in the US have been committed by Christians fundamentalists than by Muslims?

 

True, but Jesus wasn't all that interested in politics. "My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36

I think he was more interested in hypocrisy and exposing it, what better place to start than with the politicians!! The politicians and religious nuts of the day just happened to be the same entity in First Century Palestine, abusing their religious and political power to harm people.

It's funny to think of what Jesus would be and if he would politically align himself at all if he was standing, here, today. I think he'd surprise everybody with his views and his wisdom, just like he did in the first century.

 

Reread my post, I called them attrocities. What made you think I said they were ok? I'm just saying that they're different.

You are right on Eric Rudolph though. Good point.

 

Jesus would be tarnished as a tax and spend liberal. The tax rate for those making over $20,000 would be aggregated up to 80% and there would be free healthcare, food, and housing for all.

And he would kick Santa's ass a lot harder than on South Park.

 

I don't know. Find a source. In terms of societal impact, it's hard to argue with 9/11. While it may be true (I have no numbers, so until we see some it's hard to say) that there are more acts in number committed by Christian fundies than Islamic fundies, the severity of them (for now) begins and ends with 9/11.

And what category do we put Tim McVeigh in? His motivations seem to be completely outside of religious reasons.