Pat Robertson has now, for the second time, publicly announced that he supports and recommends the assasination of democratically elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Does this represent an endorsement of terrorist activity?
Should Robertson's free speech be protected here, or is this a case of "yelling fire in a crowded theater?"
How would the reaction differ if he'd called for Bush's assasination, or Blair's? What does this difference tell us, if anything, about the current power structures and/or the consistency of cour War on Terror rhetoric?
Pat Robertson has now, for the second time, publicly announced that he supports and recommends the assasination of democratically elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Does this represent an endorsement of terrorist activity?
Yes. Or, at least, assassination activity. I doubt the intent of Robertson's plan would be to instill terror.
Quote from ouallada »
Should Robertson's free speech be protected here, or is this a case of "yelling fire in a crowded theater?"
"Yelling fire" is prohibited because it causes others to do things. Robertson doesn't cause anyone to do anything.
Wow, I never expected that? What's next, a diet plan?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Does this represent an endorsement of terrorist activity?
No, it's one old loon talking out of his ass. I don't think enough people take Robertson seriously in general for this to be an issue, let alone when he starts running his mouth like this.
Should Robertson's free speech be protected here, or is this a case of "yelling fire in a crowded theater?"
It's free speech. It's stupid speech, but it's still free and should be protected.
How would the reaction differ if he'd called for Bush's assasination, or Blair's? What does this difference tell us, if anything, about the current power structures and/or the consistency of cour War on Terror rhetoric?
Calling for the assassination of the President is illegal, and at the very least, will get someone investigated by the Secret Service. It doesn't tell us anything at all, except that it's illegal to call for the murder of the US president. It may be in bad taste to call for the assassinations of foreign leaders, but that's not prohibited speech in this country.
Finally, what would Jesus do?
Pimp-slap Pat Robertson, I hope. That might be enough to get me to believe again.
No, it's one old loon talking out of his ass. I don't think enough people take Robertson seriously in general for this to be an issue, let alone when he starts running his mouth like this.
It's free speech. It's stupid speech, but it's still free and should be protected.
Calling for the assassination of the President is illegal, and at the very least, will get someone investigated by the Secret Service. It doesn't tell us anything at all, except that it's illegal to call for the murder of the US president. It may be in bad taste to call for the assassinations of foreign leaders, but that's not prohibited speech in this country.
Pimp-slap Pat Robertson, I hope. That might be enough to get me to believe again.
Calling for people to assassinate bush will simply get you thoroughly inspected by the US, and you'll actually find that the govt got a WARRANT to phone tap your calls.
and yeah, no one cares about pat robertson. Thats like saying al sharpton is saying george bush hates black people. No one cares.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
It will not be with the intent to spread terror, and in all likelyhood it wouldn't spread terror. It would just be a cold blooded murder.
On the second point, no one cares about Robertson anymore. With his last decleration to assassinate Chavez he lost what little respect he had left. There is no one that I know of, including some extremely dedicated right wingers, that would put any stock into his words.
Jesus would probably tell him to stop preaching in his name if he wasn't going to live by them or even look at their basic principles. Then he'd probably lay the beatdown on him.
I mean, if he had called for this assassination in the midst of an American weltanschauung that was a tinderbox of potential assassinations ready to explode, then yeah, we could reign him in.
I don't think you can ascribe such a condition to the people likely to listen to his broadcasts, though. :/
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
okay here's the thing. Neocons does not just mean, "conservative." The "neo" part makes it different. It changes the meaning of the term. You can't just call all conservative people neocons. Pat Robertson is clearly not a neocon.
EDIT: Oh man, he already got Goblinboy'd. Let this post stand as a reminder not to be dumb.
I wish I had more to add, but I think that surprisingly I'm in agreement with everyone on this issue. Though if you guys want, I'm in driving distance from Robertson's headquarters (it's about a 40 min drive from my house) so I could go smack some sense into him. Maybe.
Quote from Dr. Dee »
off-topic: english speakers use the word "weltanschauung"? it never ceases to amaze me, this language.
It's not exactly common usage. In fact, I had never heard it used until my honors History professor in college. However, I like the sound of the word and try to use it whenever possible to flex my vocabulary. Obviously, others like to do the same thing!
As an aside, I like using German whenver possible. It's such a bad ass sounding language.
Pat Robertson has now, for the second time, publicly announced that he supports and recommends the assasination of democratically elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
I don't care for Mr. Chavez any more than Pat does, but calling for an assassination is just wrong.
Does this represent an endorsement of terrorist activity?
To be honest, I'm not sure. What exactly is a 'terrorist'? We might say that a terrorist is one who murders, or threatens to murder innocent men and women. If so, the onus of proof is on Mr. Robertson to prove that Hugo is not an 'innocent'.
Should Robertson's free speech be protected here, or is this a case of "yelling fire in a crowded theater?"
I haven't seen his exact words, but I think his speech should probably be protected. He is not part of any conspiracy to murder Mr. Chavez as far as we know. If someone does do go through with it, he's not the responsible party unless he organized or paid for the hit.
How would the reaction differ if he'd called for Bush's assasination, or Blair's?
He would have been arrested by now, most likely.
What does this difference tell us, if anything, about the current power structures and/or the consistency of cour War on Terror rhetoric?
They aren't exactly consistent in their approach.
Finally, what would Jesus do?
Which Jesus? There are thousands of interpretations.
pat robertson has every right to say that. i would expect, however, that his lack of credibility/sanity will lead to the news networks no longer calling on him. yeah... like that will happen... can't stop him on his own show, but at least keep him away from the rest of us!
commentary such as this, the mohammed cartoons, etc. is meant more to inflame than inform, though, and only serves to appeal to the lowest parts of intellect and emotion - as opposed to the merely lower parts, where most politicians try to grab us.
the media existed as "the fourth estate" because they were supposed to check the establishment on these appeals - forcing cold substance from people who only wish to serve heated overzealousness. sadly, the MSM have become complicit in it, as appealing to our lower selves directly puts more eyes on their programs.
it's sad that more people know who scott peterson is than who scott mc clellan is... which one is more important to know?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
It seems that many of you seem to feel that assassination is either "murder" or "terrorism." I don't think that I agree with this sentiment. IMO, it's a simple question of mathematics. Why send five hundred thousand soldiers oversees to risk their lives with the intent to overthrow a government when you can send five? Armies kill, as do spies. Yet, these are not morally reprehensible.
As for this Mr. Robertson, he sounds like a blowhard rabble rouser to me. Best ignore those types, if possible.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
You have a point, Angel, but there's also the consideration of what a "mere assassination" could do to the country. A civil war would be far more damaging to the country than an invasion would be.
And yes, I am perfectly serious about this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
You have a point, Angel, but there's also the consideration of what a "mere assassination" could do to the country. A civil war would be far more damaging to the country than an invasion would be.
And yes, I am perfectly serious about this.
Civil war dose not have to be the end result. Picture if you will a foreign power in league with the Democrats. The Foreign power becomes unsatisfied with the seemingly unending governmental control by the Republican party. In order to destabilized the Republican party, Key figures (a senator here, a speaker of the house there,) disappear. Then because of the resulting chaos for the elephants, it becomes that much easier for the donkeys to make their bid for the White house. And when the balance is restored, the foreign power is a once again a happy camper.
Edit: If that's too shady and clandestine for you, the foreign power could publicly announce that if the the Republican party does not back off, the group will lend public support the Democrats, and attempt to remove members of the elephants that it finds annoying. Similar (if more difficult) result, but now a clean conscience to boot.
Edit 2: This would only take place if the Republicans were a terrible blight on the American nation and did reprehensible things that interfered with international foreign policy of course.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
A dictator of some desert nation that has all of its wealth concentrated in the ruling party and vast energy reserves rules with an iron fist. He kills thousands of his own people every year. Suddenly, and very publicly (for such is his life), he dies at the hands of a sniper's bullet. His supporters rally the troops. His foes within his own circle rally theirs. The resistance movement out in the desert rallies theirs. The citizens, moved by a demagogue, rise up en masse. Four or five factions, comprising in one way or another every man, woman and child in the country battle for control of an extremely unbalanced prize. There is no middle ground, or room for the neutral. War is in every street and on every corner.
It will not end until a new dictator is installed.
Alternatively, the second-best trained army on earth sweeps in, routs the ruling party and its entire military force, and imposes more stability on the region than it has known in twenty years. Are there deaths? Yes, there certainly are. But they are overwhelmingly military, and, what is more, far fewer than there would have been in a decade-long war to the knife fought by people with poor training and imprecise weaponry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
A dictator of some desert nation that has all of its wealth concentrated in the ruling party and vast energy reserves rules with an iron fist. He kills thousands of his own people every year. Suddenly, and very publicly (for such is his life), he dies at the hands of a sniper's bullet. His supporters rally the troops. His foes within his own circle rally theirs. The resistance movement out in the desert rallies theirs. The citizens, moved by a demagogue, rise up en masse. Four or five factions, comprising in one way or another every man, woman and child in the country battle for control of an extremely unbalanced prize. There is no middle ground, or room for the neutral. War is in every street and on every corner.
It will not end until a new dictator is installed.
Alternatively, the second-best trained army on earth sweeps in, routs the ruling party and its entire military force, and imposes more stability on the region than it has known in twenty years. Are there deaths? Yes, there certainly are. But they are overwhelmingly military, and, what is more, far fewer than there would have been in a decade-long war to the knife fought by people with poor training and imprecise weaponry.
If we (publicly or privately) back a faction of said government with American dolors and American weapons, the other governmental factions could more easily be silenced. What, I think, bothers the rioters in Faluja the most, is the lack of their own nation being run by their own countrymen. An annoying thing for anybody, I assume. Also, I would like to make the obvious and cold hearted point if efforts were not made to reestablish the government of said middle eastern country, while there may be many more deaths, it wouldn't be American soldiers dieing.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
Tan, he could be "not okay with it" without being a hypocrite in literally dozens of ways. His reasons for condemning it would be where the hypocrisy would or would not be found.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
Not again... somebody should call for HIS assassination. Both parties on the war on terror are led by extremists. Christian ones are just as dangerous as Muslim ones.
Quote from ouallada »
Does this represent an endorsement of terrorist activity?
Depends on whether you feel the CIA actions in the Cold War were terrorist acts. To me, that's debatable because if we do assassinate him, it will be done by the CIA.
Should Robertson's free speech be protected here, or is this a case of "yelling fire in a crowded theater?"
No. Calling for the killing of somebody, anybody, should not be tolerated.
How would the reaction differ if he'd called for Bush's assasination, or Blair's? What does this difference tell us, if anything, about the current power structures and/or the consistency of cour War on Terror rhetoric?
Ah, the magic of double standards. If I called for the assassination of Bush, I'd have my ass in the slammer, but if he did it, he'd be immune. That's the way it works.
It seems that many of you seem to feel that assassination is either "murder" or "terrorism." I don't think that I agree with this sentiment. IMO, it's a simple question of mathematics. Why send five hundred thousand soldiers oversees to risk their lives with the intent to overthrow a government when you can send five? Armies kill, as do spies. Yet, these are not morally reprehensible.
I have a problem with your last two sentences. It so happens that many people do indeed consider killing, whether by five or a hundred thousand, to be morally reprehensible. In fact, the people who seem to feel most strongly about this, at least ostensibly, are the very people Pat Robertson supposedly represents; the Christians. Of course, saying "The Christians" is like saying "The Americans," there's the whole gamut of ideology there. But I am just annoyed by the lack of outrage among supposed christians about this. And I continue to have a problem with the supposedly christian concept of a "Just War."
Personally, I think it's clear as can be. Jesus was not an advocate of killing, but of love. Not of destroying your enemy, but of loving him. And of turning the other cheek. To my way of thinking, if Jesus had been our president after 9-11, we'd have altered our foreign policy to be more equitable to the middle east, and we'd go down the diplomatic route. There'd have been no war on terror. Of course, the day Jesus came into office, 90% of the government's normal operations would likely be in jeopardy.
What I'm getting at with this shaky hypothetical allegory thingy is that my response to Robertson is, "Um... Riiiiight. You're a christian, and I'm cinderella."
Seriously, saying "I'm Christian" is meaningless in our country. It doesn't tell anyone anything about your moral stance on any issue. You could be for or against anything from war of aggression to child blood sacrifice to favoring divination through speaking in tongues to scientific observation, to whatever you want to believe.
I think Christianity has become, "Say you're christian and do whatever you want! Take the moral high ground today at your local church. Never feel the pangs of guilt again with our one-step program."
Yeah, that about sums it up. Christians. About the only thing you can count on is that they will in no way embody the life Jesus talks about in the sermon on the mount. I haven't run into a christian like that for years now.
...and yeah, no one cares about pat robertson. Thats like saying al sharpton is saying george bush hates black people. No one cares.
Agreed. This thead is just "find a big dumb idiot and bash him". I should start a "look...I can't believe this idiot sayed something idiotic" thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Pat Robertson has now, for the second time, publicly announced that he supports and recommends the assasination of democratically elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Does this represent an endorsement of terrorist activity?
Should Robertson's free speech be protected here, or is this a case of "yelling fire in a crowded theater?"
How would the reaction differ if he'd called for Bush's assasination, or Blair's? What does this difference tell us, if anything, about the current power structures and/or the consistency of cour War on Terror rhetoric?
Finally, what would Jesus do?
Check out the blog too.
Yes. Or, at least, assassination activity. I doubt the intent of Robertson's plan would be to instill terror.
"Yelling fire" is prohibited because it causes others to do things. Robertson doesn't cause anyone to do anything.
Really?
Wow, I never expected that? What's next, a diet plan?
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
No, it's one old loon talking out of his ass. I don't think enough people take Robertson seriously in general for this to be an issue, let alone when he starts running his mouth like this.
It's free speech. It's stupid speech, but it's still free and should be protected.
Calling for the assassination of the President is illegal, and at the very least, will get someone investigated by the Secret Service. It doesn't tell us anything at all, except that it's illegal to call for the murder of the US president. It may be in bad taste to call for the assassinations of foreign leaders, but that's not prohibited speech in this country.
Pimp-slap Pat Robertson, I hope. That might be enough to get me to believe again.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
Calling for people to assassinate bush will simply get you thoroughly inspected by the US, and you'll actually find that the govt got a WARRANT to phone tap your calls.
and yeah, no one cares about pat robertson. Thats like saying al sharpton is saying george bush hates black people. No one cares.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
On the second point, no one cares about Robertson anymore. With his last decleration to assassinate Chavez he lost what little respect he had left. There is no one that I know of, including some extremely dedicated right wingers, that would put any stock into his words.
Jesus would probably tell him to stop preaching in his name if he wasn't going to live by them or even look at their basic principles. Then he'd probably lay the beatdown on him.
I mean, if he had called for this assassination in the midst of an American weltanschauung that was a tinderbox of potential assassinations ready to explode, then yeah, we could reign him in.
I don't think you can ascribe such a condition to the people likely to listen to his broadcasts, though. :/
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Seriously, I'm amazed anyone still listens to him anymore. Although he really is quite amusing.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
When it comes to interesting words in other languages, we takes what we likes. John Foreigner can learn to deal.
@Ahriman: Thank you for that weighty contribution.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
okay here's the thing. Neocons does not just mean, "conservative." The "neo" part makes it different. It changes the meaning of the term. You can't just call all conservative people neocons. Pat Robertson is clearly not a neocon.
EDIT: Oh man, he already got Goblinboy'd. Let this post stand as a reminder not to be dumb.
It's not exactly common usage. In fact, I had never heard it used until my honors History professor in college. However, I like the sound of the word and try to use it whenever possible to flex my vocabulary. Obviously, others like to do the same thing!
As an aside, I like using German whenver possible. It's such a bad ass sounding language.
I don't care for Mr. Chavez any more than Pat does, but calling for an assassination is just wrong.
To be honest, I'm not sure. What exactly is a 'terrorist'? We might say that a terrorist is one who murders, or threatens to murder innocent men and women. If so, the onus of proof is on Mr. Robertson to prove that Hugo is not an 'innocent'.
I haven't seen his exact words, but I think his speech should probably be protected. He is not part of any conspiracy to murder Mr. Chavez as far as we know. If someone does do go through with it, he's not the responsible party unless he organized or paid for the hit.
He would have been arrested by now, most likely.
They aren't exactly consistent in their approach.
Which Jesus? There are thousands of interpretations.
commentary such as this, the mohammed cartoons, etc. is meant more to inflame than inform, though, and only serves to appeal to the lowest parts of intellect and emotion - as opposed to the merely lower parts, where most politicians try to grab us.
the media existed as "the fourth estate" because they were supposed to check the establishment on these appeals - forcing cold substance from people who only wish to serve heated overzealousness. sadly, the MSM have become complicit in it, as appealing to our lower selves directly puts more eyes on their programs.
it's sad that more people know who scott peterson is than who scott mc clellan is... which one is more important to know?
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
As for this Mr. Robertson, he sounds like a blowhard rabble rouser to me. Best ignore those types, if possible.
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
And yes, I am perfectly serious about this.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Edit: Second thought: It might not change much.
Civil war dose not have to be the end result. Picture if you will a foreign power in league with the Democrats. The Foreign power becomes unsatisfied with the seemingly unending governmental control by the Republican party. In order to destabilized the Republican party, Key figures (a senator here, a speaker of the house there,) disappear. Then because of the resulting chaos for the elephants, it becomes that much easier for the donkeys to make their bid for the White house. And when the balance is restored, the foreign power is a once again a happy camper.
Edit: If that's too shady and clandestine for you, the foreign power could publicly announce that if the the Republican party does not back off, the group will lend public support the Democrats, and attempt to remove members of the elephants that it finds annoying. Similar (if more difficult) result, but now a clean conscience to boot.
Edit 2: This would only take place if the Republicans were a terrible blight on the American nation and did reprehensible things that interfered with international foreign policy of course.
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
A dictator of some desert nation that has all of its wealth concentrated in the ruling party and vast energy reserves rules with an iron fist. He kills thousands of his own people every year. Suddenly, and very publicly (for such is his life), he dies at the hands of a sniper's bullet. His supporters rally the troops. His foes within his own circle rally theirs. The resistance movement out in the desert rallies theirs. The citizens, moved by a demagogue, rise up en masse. Four or five factions, comprising in one way or another every man, woman and child in the country battle for control of an extremely unbalanced prize. There is no middle ground, or room for the neutral. War is in every street and on every corner.
It will not end until a new dictator is installed.
Alternatively, the second-best trained army on earth sweeps in, routs the ruling party and its entire military force, and imposes more stability on the region than it has known in twenty years. Are there deaths? Yes, there certainly are. But they are overwhelmingly military, and, what is more, far fewer than there would have been in a decade-long war to the knife fought by people with poor training and imprecise weaponry.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
If we (publicly or privately) back a faction of said government with American dolors and American weapons, the other governmental factions could more easily be silenced. What, I think, bothers the rioters in Faluja the most, is the lack of their own nation being run by their own countrymen. An annoying thing for anybody, I assume. Also, I would like to make the obvious and cold hearted point if efforts were not made to reestablish the government of said middle eastern country, while there may be many more deaths, it wouldn't be American soldiers dieing.
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Depends on whether you feel the CIA actions in the Cold War were terrorist acts. To me, that's debatable because if we do assassinate him, it will be done by the CIA.
No. Calling for the killing of somebody, anybody, should not be tolerated.
Ah, the magic of double standards. If I called for the assassination of Bush, I'd have my ass in the slammer, but if he did it, he'd be immune. That's the way it works.
Smite Pat Robertson, hopefully.
I have a problem with your last two sentences. It so happens that many people do indeed consider killing, whether by five or a hundred thousand, to be morally reprehensible. In fact, the people who seem to feel most strongly about this, at least ostensibly, are the very people Pat Robertson supposedly represents; the Christians. Of course, saying "The Christians" is like saying "The Americans," there's the whole gamut of ideology there. But I am just annoyed by the lack of outrage among supposed christians about this. And I continue to have a problem with the supposedly christian concept of a "Just War."
Personally, I think it's clear as can be. Jesus was not an advocate of killing, but of love. Not of destroying your enemy, but of loving him. And of turning the other cheek. To my way of thinking, if Jesus had been our president after 9-11, we'd have altered our foreign policy to be more equitable to the middle east, and we'd go down the diplomatic route. There'd have been no war on terror. Of course, the day Jesus came into office, 90% of the government's normal operations would likely be in jeopardy.
What I'm getting at with this shaky hypothetical allegory thingy is that my response to Robertson is, "Um... Riiiiight. You're a christian, and I'm cinderella."
Seriously, saying "I'm Christian" is meaningless in our country. It doesn't tell anyone anything about your moral stance on any issue. You could be for or against anything from war of aggression to child blood sacrifice to favoring divination through speaking in tongues to scientific observation, to whatever you want to believe.
I think Christianity has become, "Say you're christian and do whatever you want! Take the moral high ground today at your local church. Never feel the pangs of guilt again with our one-step program."
Yeah, that about sums it up. Christians. About the only thing you can count on is that they will in no way embody the life Jesus talks about in the sermon on the mount. I haven't run into a christian like that for years now.
Check out the blog too.
Agreed. This thead is just "find a big dumb idiot and bash him". I should start a "look...I can't believe this idiot sayed something idiotic" thread.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
See, this is the thing. He doesn't influence anyone's actions -- the most the does is influence the opinions of inconsequential people.