Pat Robertson quote / Church kicks out all Democrats
 

Watching Meet the Press, and apparently- Pat Robertson said that the "judiciary is a greater thread to America than a few bearded terrorists." Stupidity personified- that's mr Robertson.

Elsewhere, an East Waynesville Baptist Church excommunicates all Democratic members. CNN has a video on the issue, but they don't have an article.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

There's a discussion on it over at OOTP with links to the Daily Kos, and people who were in the church. There may well be more to this, but if this church doesnt lose its tax exempt status now....

http://ootpdevelopments.com/board/sh...ad.php?t=97780

Pat Robertson is a tool.

Yup, I hate the fact that Pat Robertson is associated with the Republican party.

Ive always felt Robertson was the embodiment of a neocon... how is his ideal any different than the one driving the Bush administration?

Robertson is one of the GOP's golden boys, if you cant stand him, i cant see how you could be a republican? Not flaming here, just curious.

What do you mean by "neocon"?


He's far too right-wing for my tastes. I'm a Republican because I believe in personal responsibility, that the government can't take care of everybody, and fiscal responsibility. While the Republican party has not been as good at those things as I'd like them to be, they've been far better than the Dems. Robertson is a bit farther right-wing than I'd like, mostly because he brings too much religion to politics, and politics in religion is one of the reasons I have such a hard time finding a good religion to follow. Religion shouldn't be about political power, but has been for far too long in human history.

Hmm... nice to see a righty arguing that something he doesn't like is "a bigger threat than the terrorists", and the lefties feigning outrage over it. It's nice to switch things up every now and then.

Those extreme right wingers want to turn this nation into the next Iran.

neocon = neo-conservative. If I'm not mistaken, it's more PR term is "compassionate conservative". (But I rarely follow politics anymore (pisses me off to much ;) ) so I could be wrong there).

Actually, they're two very different things. I think that the original post may have been referring to "compassionate" conversatism, and Pat Robertson and his ilk don't have much in common with neoconservatism.

Yeah, he is the extreme right. I don't think because he is a religious right-wing doesn't mean he is the "status quote" of the party. I with him on my beliefs, and I don't like orgaized religion.

Pat Robertson is a private citizen that has every right to voice his personal opinion on any and all topics, in particular politics. The fact that he is so upfront and direct in his comments makes him good kick-me material for liberals and secular humanists and he must know that or he wouldn't keep putting himself front and center.

The far more frightening and sinister individual to keep track of is George Soros. A Greek billionaire that works behind the scenes thru venues like Air America, Soros thru stealth seeks to undermine and overthrow the very Judeo-Christian foundations of this country. Most don't even know who he is, Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell are more well known.

Soros doews sound very dangerous too. Possible candidate for Emperor Palpatine.

Appearantly right wingers like gstelmack have the same issues with him. Also, no one is questioning his right to voice his opinions. I just find it disgusting a guy like this is a invaluable member of the GOP.


Wow Bubba, time to make a new tin foil hat. How do you come up with such complete nonsense? Soros is liberal, anti neocon...end of story, has nothing to do with destroying your religion.

I just want to know this.... why cant the Republicans win a political race without trying to section off the religious vote? Why dont honest Republicans care that one of the GOPs' main PR drives is to make sure they (GOP) become synonymous with Christianity?

Each party has their hard core voting groups.

So that's all you think that George Soros is about, huh? Soros operates in the shadows and that seems to work pretty well in fooling your type based on your 'description' of him...liberal, anti-neocon...end of story? Amazing :eek:

Glad you agree, Bubba. If you disagreed, I'm sure you would have posted some independent, verifiable facts to back up your assertions. But since you didn't...glad you're being much more rational and objective now. :)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that Mr. Soros actually has quite a fan-club amongst the anti-faith-based crowd.

What about Clear Channel's support of the Right radio? have a problem with too? you should if youre not hypocritical and ready to flush your statements down the toilet.

kinda pointless to get into this withBW since as a trend now even the Right's supporters on here view his statements as tunnelled and fanatical (maybe mine too - but at least I can admit when the right is right)

Its amazing how youre completely ignorant to the brainwashing the GOP has put on you. Ive never ever ever EVER have been anti faith, in any way.

NO LIBERAL IS ANTI FAITH, IN ANY WAY.

Thats a core liberal belief.

But since the GOP machine has been hard at work telling you that we are, then i guess we are, huh?

Do you know why they tell you were out to destroy your religion?? The same reason I just posted, they want to make damn well sure anyone who is christian votes republican. end of story. again.

Wake up man, and just think for yourself. Ive never once said anything that makes me look like a anti christian bigot. Thats where Libs and NeoCons differ.. we want everyone to do as they please, you want everyone to do what pleases you.

Edit: Never mind. The Malleus Dei of FOF returns.

Well, if anybody had cared to check you would have gotten me on one fact: George Soros is actually Hungarian, not Greek as I originally stated.

And Arnold Schwarzennegger is Austrian. Is your point that rich immigrants from Central Europe shouldn't have a place in American politics?

I think most people on here have much better things to do than fact check you, they most likely just assume you are pulling shit out of thin air again. I doubt anyone could care less if Soros was from greece, or hungary, or new jersey.

Bubba: What about Richard Scaife? He gives a ton of money to right wing organizations, has a right wing newspaper and refuses to do any interviews about anything? He must scare you.

Or maybe the guy, sorry the name escapes me, who single-handedly provided the money to setup the Cato Institute. Boy, you must not be able to sleep because of that guy.

Or what about Rev. Moon. He's a billionaire with his own media empire, including a US newspaper and an entire wire service. He's called for the end of individualism and democracy while also being crowned at the Senate Office building by a Rep. of the US House. Of course Bush1 and guys like Bill Bennett give speeches for him and Bush2 has appointed Moon's followers to high-level government office. He must have you crapping in your pants.

Arnold made his money in this country pursuing the 'American dream', Soros made his money as 'the man who broke the bank of England' among other endevours including suspected 'insider trading' with a French bank and called by one critic a 'soft-money Marxist'...

Who is attempting to use his fortune to remake U.S. society in his image thru Air America, Move-on.org and others while remaining in the background. A driving force behind the campaign 'reform bill' that many would conclude is blatently anti-free speech and unconstitutional that makes the problems of special interest money in politics even worse (and allows himself, Soros, even more influence what a big surprise)

No, I really don't see anything in common between the two other than being born somewhat close to each other outside the U.S.

You just prove my point, Chubby...if I had stated that Simon Cowell is from France I bet I would have gotten corrected instantly. Nobody knows enough about Mr. Soros in general to know where he is from. They do now though.

What's the less PR term for Liberals? So I can call them that. :p

Also, I'm guessing Republicans are called "neocons" as to relate them somehow to "neonazis"? That seems pretty harsh.

The activities of Soros are widely known, and have been widely reported, and he's not doing anything that isn't being done by wealthy individuals on the other side.

And Rev. Moon has been convicted of tax evasion in the US. So we have a "suspected" criminal(in France? I thought we couldn't trust France.) versus a real live criminal.



Excluding the Supreme Court of course. "Many" would also say it doesn't go far enought to limit the influence of big money.

And getting back to the subject of the thread, what about "Reverand" Robertson and the Christian Coalition? Here's a guy that has been caught using charity funds to pay for mining equipment, has been caught stealing mining rights from other Americans and has cozied up to some of Africa's worst dictators in order to make money. He also has a daily television broadcast that promotes right-wing views and has spent years trashing Democrats. Oh the horror.

Dutch: No, neo-con was a term created by a small group of people who believed in a kind of "national greatness" foriegn policy. Many were former Democrats, including Wolfowitz. A lot had connections to Scoop Jackson.

The neo-nazi thing is a figment of your imagination.

Speaking of Robertson again, wasn't he the guy who called Charles Taylor a good Christian, and blasted the Bush Administration for not supporting that butcher?

That is the same. He also had ties to Mobutu. Robertson is a vile individual. He makes a fortune off his followers and pours much of it into his business ventures. Its sad that so many well-intentioned Christians support his corrupt organization.

When used in connection with Robertson, I thought it meant neo-conartist.

No, please read. Nobody pays attention to your "facts".

Actually, the "neo-conservative" movement is a real movement within the Republican party, which as other posters have pointed out in this thread, differs markedly from the Christian-conservative and traditional fiscal conservative wings of the party.

They tend to be from more intellectual/academic backgrounds than the other wings. The "neo" comes from the fact that many of the founders of the movement, being from an academic environment, were former liberals. I've heard that these founders were disillusioned with the social liberal movement and politically became more conservative, but their approach--that society's problems can be solved via theory and ideas--is still a defining hallmark of the movement. This approach could be seen in the geopolitical assumptions made in the administration's strategic planning in the Middle East. Anyway, it has been said that neo-cons are very similar to traditional liberal policy wonks save for political ideology--while politically dissimilar, both believe that application of theory will make the world a better place.

Neo-cons differ from many traditional "fiscal" conservatives who are more pragmatic/less theoretical and who don't believe that it is necessarily our place and mission to make the world a better place, and neo-cons differ from the Christian right in that the academic background of neo-cons engenders a view of the world that is influenced by social-scientific theory and humanist philosophy, and not based on judeo-christian religion.

It is interesting to see how influential the neo-con movement has become so quickly, since they are an intellectual movement and have no grassroots organizational support (aka the religious conservatives)--few people have heard of many of these people before 2000...

:rolleyes: Stupidest. Comment. Ever.

Thanks. Of course, this (BW) is someone who has totally misunderstood his own faith.


LMAO!!

Actually, I think Malleus may be more intelligent than BW. Scary, no?

Maybe so, but they are both able to turn a dead thread into multiple pages with their ignorant, inciteful comments. They then complain that nobody attacks their stupid arguments but only them...wash, rinse, repeat.

While I hesitate to get into this thread, as it has already followed its very predictable arc into pure partisan bullshit...


It does strike me that there is a certain logic to this argument.

IF you believe that aborion is essentialy murder, as I have no doubt Mr. Robertson does, then certainly you would be compelled to agree that the legal procedure of abortion has caused more deaths in this country than terrorism over any meaningful recent period of time.

Therefore, if using "deaths caused" is a reasonable metric for how serious a problem is (and I don't think that's whilly unreasonable) you could very fairly conclude that aborion is a bigger threat/problem than is terrorism.

And, if you conclude that the judiciary is the element in the governmental system that is single-handedly maintaining the current legality of abortion (another argument I wouldn't really quarel with), then you could very soundly conclude that the American judiciary is itself, by its actions, a greater danger to our society (or however you might seek to phrase it) than terrorists of any sort.


It's not a wholly pointless argument. Of course... very few people care to give any real thought to that kind of speech, and instead will simply march to their pre-ordained side in each and every political argument.

Abortion is an awfully tough issue if you are a believer in logical consistency. Just ask the countless Americans who will simultaneously agree that (1) abortion is murder, and (2) abortion should be okay in cases of rape or incest. Or rather, don't ask them -- it will cause them to use parts of their brain that they prefer to leave dormant, and just be told what to think about things.

Minor point of correction here: Protestant churches do not recognize the authority to "excommunicate" in the traditional sense. There is no supposition in any of the numerous Protestant creeds that failing to give fealty to that set of beliefs automatically denies someone the hope of heaven. In the Protestant creeds (or at least all the ones I've seen), the only thing that disqualifies someone from the hope of heaven is the failure to believe that Jesus died for your sins. And really, if you're not willing to believe that, you're probably not wanting to attend church in the first place.

At the same time, however, kicking people out of your church because of their political beliefs is asinine (and the article up at CNN today if you follow the link above seems to indicate that the pastor has either realized he overstepped his bounds or has been severely chastened by the church's board). People go to church to worship God, not a particular political agenda.

It's not a wholly pointless argument. It's very well constructed and it's logical. Of course, that doesn't mean it's right, legal or even moral - but that's a whole other discussion.

I think abortion is an awfully tough issue BECAUSE many of the Pro-choice groups are believers in logical consistency. That most anti-choicers can't logically put forth their arguments without either bringing religion into the discussion and/or having the kind of illogical exceptions like the one you presented above makes it such a polarizing issue. You essentially have two groups that cannot relate to each other to find any common ground.

Update: The Pastor of the church who kicked out the "non-believers" now insists that there was a great misunderstanding.

I think one important point that is not made by your argument is that Robertson does not say "the judiciary presents a greater threat to loss of life than the terrorists." The full version of his quotes corroborates that he didn't intend to make that argument.

Instead, Robertson is saying the judiciary represents a greater threat to America. I think that argument is much harder to defend. After all, abortion has been legal for over 30 years and the threat to "America" as a concept is minimal. The worst effect is the status quo. Terrorists, on the other hand, are a much greater threat (if Robertson and the neocons are to be believed).

And none of this mentions the positive role the judiciary plays in formulating "America." You have to evaluate the "good" with the "bad" to make Robertson's argument.

All of this is pretty academic, though, since Robertson is a tool.

Well, I may not always be right and I'll admit that; but the one thing I am never presumptious enough to do is pretend that I speak for everybody on any subject...so I'll just leave that to you since you seem to think we and I are pretty interchangible regarding your personal opinions ;)

Then again, maybe you really do speak for most folks around here...that's a thought

Im still lovin' the fact you didnt comment on the funders who fund only the right. Thats awesome how you blacked that out of your brain.

however they use the death penalty at a rampant pace.

My original point to posting here I thought was pretty obvious...Robertson is the media's boogeyman regarding Christian Conservatives so they like to 'trot him out' whenever they can get an embarrassing comment from him and then they try to apply it to the Christian conservatives in general "...see! They are trying to take us down a path of a theocracy! They want a Taliban ruling the U.S.! The sky is falling!"

Robertson isn't shy about making comments and doesn't duck the spotlight, so the results are probably inevitable and I don't defend him...just wondering with a guy like Soros operating with 11 billion dollars behind the scenes using front organizations and never really allowing the spotlight on himself who is really allowing themselves to be misled and manipulated?

I don't think it's as easy as that. I suspect there are a fair number of the rabid pro-life activists who wouldn't support abortion even for rape and incest (i.e. who are logically consistent). It's the greater public who tends to be conflicted, opposing abortion in general, but accepting it in certain circumstances.

Nor is it a huge problem to bring religion into it, insofar as some people's moral views are affected by their religious beliefs. This is an issue that hinges mostly on individual moral viewpoints, and people are informed in their viewpoints from many sources. I don't have a problem with someone saying I oppose abortion because of my religious belief.

What makes abortion difficult, I think, is that we all have a strong sense that human life should be protected, but only a vague sense of what human life is (see also Terry Schiavo and the right to die debate, and the death penalty debate). The religious right decided to draw a line in the sand. It's not necessarily dictated by their religion (I don't think it actually says in the bible that human life begins at conception), but they made a determination and adhere strictly to it..

If you're not willing to draw such a bright line, as is the case for much of the public, it's not inconsistent to oppose abortion generally, but allow it in some cases. Since you don't know exactly where you need to start protecting life it makes sense to protect it as default, but make allowances when there are compelling reasons.

As others have above, I disagree that Robertson is a neocon. Klingerware's excellent post points out the different camps, and Robertson falls pretty clearly in the religious right camp. Who knows, maybe he agrees with Jerry Falwell that 9/11 was some sort of righteous reprisal against the seculars, feminists, gays, and abortionists who are apparently ruining America. In that view abortion really is a greater threat than the terrorists...

Well, the Bible does say to not fear man, who can only kill you...but to fear God, who has the power to cast you into hell once you are dead.