Pat Robertson proves once and for all that he's really the Anti-Christ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Im fine with that. Their probably both pretty good shots. ~:)

---

If Dubya's public hunting history is any measure he would have been in trouble...probably would have killed a U.N. observer or something. Doesn't help to be a good shot, if you can't identify your target properly. ~;)

(For those who are unaware, while Dubya was running for governor of Texas he accidentally shot a protected bird during a staged hunting event...then turned to gloat to the press about it, whereupon the stunned reporters informed him that he had shot the wrong bird.)

Quote:

---

I think there is space for a just war, at least in Catholic doctrine.

---

So then do you think it would have benn more un christian to assasinate Hitler an end WW2 earlier or to fight it as was done? Does the end justify the means?

Quote:

---

True, but are you saying they were right to do so?

---

I have no idea . You would have to go an a case by case basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So then do you think it would have benn more un christian to assasinate Hitler an end WW2 earlier or to fight it as was done? Does the end justify the means?

---

According to Christian doctrine? Augustine accepted that a war could occur to prevent a greater evil, including a heresy; whether Jesus would have agreed is debatable. Later Christian theorists developed a just war ideology that placed considerable limits on the use of force. There has to be some prior offense (causa) for a war to be legitimate. No one knew the future back in 1933.

Note, however, that the papacy refused to accept the Iraq war as a just war. There is little basis in Catholic doctrine for the notion of preemptive war.

Quote:

---

According to Christian doctrine? Augustine accepted that a war could occur to prevent a greater evil,

---

Then I would imagine he would support assasination also if it also was done to prevent a greater evil. Hes as bad as Robertson ~;)

Assassination ultimately creates instability which will only kill MORE commoners.

Assassination is only acceptable against targets which are TRULY illegitimate, who can successfully be written off as usurpers and rabble without any true civic support. Guerrilla leaders and mob bosses are good examples. Chavez is probably too legitimate, though.

DA

Quote:

---

Assassination is only acceptable against targets which are TRULY illegitimate, who can successfully be written off as usurpers and rabble without any true civic support.

---

I agree. I mean you cant just go bumping off anyone who dissagrees with you. Besides Don Cordelone is busy in Alaska right now ~D

But Im afraid some may take that as it being acceptable to assasinate GWB under those conditions after the 2000 election ~;)

Huh, I said a while ago that it would be in the US's best interest to have him killed. Its dangerous to have an extreme socialist in control of any country, especially one as strategically important as Venezuela.

Its probably not a good thing for Robertson to be saying though, those type of things are better said in private meetings... but who really takes him seriously anyway?

I love it when leftists try and portray people like Robertson as the "Face of Christianity". ~D

some time ago i saw some nutjub tele-evangelist on the daily-show actually praying for more seats to open up in the supreme court(i.e. praying for people to die simply because they disagree with his lunatic viewpoint....how christian of him)
.....we talking about the same nutjub here?

Wow, so many issues and themes -- quite a rich little thread.

On the Bible as a source:

In addition to the inevitable problems associated with translation (Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, Greek to divers others), we also have a dispute as to which sacred writings are worth of inclusion as canon. I, as a Catholic, acknowledge Tobit to be a part of the Bible whereas numerous others do not. The synod that originally codified the first version dispensed with numerous gospels, epistles, etc.

What is contained in the modern Bible, notably the King James version, represents the physical (if not spiritual) authorship of dozens of individuals written over a period of at least 14 centuries. There are numerous internal contradictions if one looks at the text on a line-by-line basis. Levitican proscriptions dominate orthodox Judaism to this day but have been doctrinally superceded by New Testament faiths, who nevertheless include Leviticus in the sacred text.

The larger purpose of the Bible as a whole is to bring us closer to God. It fulfills this purpose well. Individuals have tried to use it for milennia to justify their own pet theories and actions, and the inherent equivocality and varied style of the text mean that almost anyone can find a quotation or two to support nearly anything. Slavery, Witch-burning, Un-equal treatment for women have all been justified though biblical verse, yet today Western Society finds such beliefs immoral -- using the same book.


On Violence and Christianity

The New Testament takes a far more pacifistic tone than did the Old Testament. Jesus rarely resorted to violence, and what violence he did was largely against things as opposed to people. Christianity is not, however, the status of living a life in the manner of Christ. That is its perfect object, the unattainable goal to which we poor sinners strive -- but never quite attain.

Was Robertson's backhanded call for the assassination of Chavez appropriate? Of course not. Does that invalidate any of the good the Robertson may have done by bringing some people closer to their faith? Of course not. He has a "bully pulpit," but we can reject, agree with, or be influenced by what he says to the extent we wish. Ultimately, he only speaks for himself.


On US Policy

The US has discarded the use of Assassination as a tool of policy. Such a practice is, in the long run, self-defeating, since others can play the same game and then all political leaders are in jeopardy and paranoia and chaos take charge.

During open conflict, US doctrine calls for the decapitation of the enemy as a means of shortening the conflict and minimizing casualties on both sides. Had Saddam been killed in the first moments of the air campaign preceding Gulf 1, it is unlikely that any ground action would have been required -- saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis. When the enemy commander goes down your chances for a quick rout and fewer casualties tend to go up (unless your name is Pez' and you mercilessly hunt the routers to extinction anyway ~;) ).





Seamus

Quote:

---

some time ago i saw some nutjub tele-evangelist on the daily-show actually praying for more seats to open up in the supreme court(i.e. praying for people to die simply because they disagree with his lunatic viewpoint....how christian of him)
.....we talking about the same nutjub here?

---

Yes, I saw the same episode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The US has discarded the use of Assassination as a tool of policy. Such a practice is, in the long run, self-defeating, since others can play the same game and then all political leaders are in jeopardy and paranoia and chaos take charge.

---

I agree with almost all of your post, except for this point. There was considerable debate about changing the prohibition on assassinations just recently; I'm not exactly sure how it all worked out. Nor do I trust the Bush administration to adhere to any reasonable definition of assassinations. They more or less defined 'torture' out of existence, and they're trying to do the same with 'genocide'. I see no reason why they won't do the same with 'assassination'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I agree with almost all of your post, except for this point. There was considerable debate about changing the prohibition on assassinations just recently; I'm not exactly sure how it all worked out. Nor do I trust the Bush administration to adhere to any reasonable definition of assassinations. They more or less defined 'torture' out of existence, and they're trying to do the same with 'genocide'. I see no reason why they won't do the same with 'assassination'.

---

Where as the adminstration was able to play around with the term what constitutes torture. The adminstration is limited by the actual executive order that prohibits assassination as a method of foreign policy.

And if the adminstration ever changes that policy (The assassination policy) - I will be one of the first ones in Texas holding a sign next to Cindy Sheehan at the Crawford Ranch asking the President to explain himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Where as the adminstration was able to play around with the term what constitutes torture. The adminstration is limited by the actual executive order that prohibits assassination as a method of foreign policy.

And if the adminstration ever changes that policy (The assassination policy) - I will be one of the first ones in Texas holding a sign next to Cindy Sheehan at the Crawford Ranch asking the President to explain himself.

---

Fair enough Redleg. I stand corrected. But there was a debate on it recently, right? I believe the Bush administration was involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Fair enough Redleg. I stand corrected. But there was a debate on it recently, right? I believe the Bush administration was involved.

---

Sorry for the emotional outburst - the concept of state sponsored assassination is one that the United States needs to stay away from. Its one thing to on purpose target political leaders in a nation which you are conducting a war against - its part of the conflict - but to kill national leaders outside of a war - is just well - wrong.

The law as written and cited in the following link.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf

Quote:

---

On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 on
“United States Intelligence Activities.” Section 2.11 of the order provides: “Prohibition on
Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government
shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 of the order prohibits
indirect participation in activities prohibited by the order, stating: “Indirect participation.
No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to
undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” E.O. 12333 is still in force.

---

It seems that some were questioning if the assassination ban applies to targeting terrorists.

But your right it has been discussed by many it seems as the way to conduct business in fighting terrorists..

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/09/...n.war.ce.0930/

http://www.peacenowar.net/Sep%2016%2001--CIA.htm

However when searching Executive Orders - I find no executive order or links to any order that rescinds EO 12333.

Executive orders can be reversed by the present executive if memory serves. In fact, wasn't there something like this (executive order reversal) not that long ago...can't remember what it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

some time ago i saw some nutjub tele-evangelist on the daily-show actually praying for more seats to open up in the supreme court(i.e. praying for people to die simply because they disagree with his lunatic viewpoint....how christian of him)
.....we talking about the same nutjub here?

---

Same one. He ran for President in the GOP primaries in 1988. He had quite a few supporters, but the self destruction of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker about the same time certainly didn't help him.

Robertson is a nutjob, but with a large following.

My favorite Pat quote:

Quote:

---

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

---

What century are you living in, Pat? I mean, witchcraft, for the love of Pete...

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

My favorite Pat quote:



What century are you living in, Pat? I mean, witchcraft, for the love of Pete...

:dizzy2:

---

actually on that particular quote, Robertson is correct. many witchcraft cults go hand in hand with feminism as does all the other stuff he mentioned (except maybe capitalism)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

actually on that particular quote, Robertson is correct. many witchcraft cults go hand in hand with feminism as does all the other stuff he mentioned (except maybe capitalism)

---

Actually, in the USA, some chapters of NOW have broken with the National HQ over this.

Too often of late, NOW has supported a left-wing political agenda to the exclusion of the promotion of women's issues -- didn't sit well with all of the membership.

I have nothing against witchcraft, it's fairly benign, and I suspect lesbianism is "hardwired," so it vexes me very little. Hopping on the anti-republican bandwagon, as opposed to hammering on equal pay for equal work, workplaces that accomodate a women's role as a mother, etc. has "back-burnered" women's issues, and it doesn't fit their stated mission.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Too bad GW didn't accept Saddam's offer of a duel between the two leaders to settle matters.

---

Now that would have been cool!

I wonder if Vegas would have had a betting line?

And it definately would have been broadcast on pay-per-view, damn I woulda paid like $29

and the ads (read in overdramatic boxing ad promotion voice)

Saddam 'the butcher' Hussein vs George 'W' Bush

Smack - Down in Iraq -Town

This time, its for the oil!

with a lightwieght undercard

Pat 'Nutjob' Robertson v Hugo 'Lefty' Chavez

Just say to them:

Relax, don't do it
When you want to go to it.



(Not sure if anyone will be old enough to get that one ~;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Just say to them:

Relax, don't do it
When you want to go to it.



(Not sure if anyone will be old enough to get that one ~;) )

---

Unfortunely I am more then old enough to get that one. ~:eek:

The average age of the Org is about 30 so plenty will get it...

Fundamentalism in USA?!!!!! ~:eek: ~;) . Wow. This really shocks me, if in the land of the brave and of the free exist such people that think like that,mmmm...
I ask just one question (that means a lot more than that of course): If Venezuela turns into a pure socialist state. Will USA invade them?

Quote:

---

: If Venezuela turns into a pure socialist state. Will USA invade them?

---

Not directly. ~D

Lets pray this dosent happen as socialism never works and Cuba is a great example. Again why would anyone want to emulate them? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

I ask just one question (that means a lot more than that of course): If Venezuela turns into a pure socialist state. Will USA invade them?

---

Yes.

The first thing I thought when I saw Robertson's comment was that Chavez must have stepped on one of Pat's little "investments".

It's worth remembering that Pat Robertson has long been the primary defender of former Liberian President Charles Taylor... an incredibly corrupt character who is hiding out in Nigeria to escape international prosecution for war crimes. Robertson lobbied hard to get the US government to lay off Taylor when the State Department was trying to get Taylor to leave Liberia. At the time, Robertson said:

"So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'"

Well, it turns out that Robertson had a $8 million investment in Liberian gold mining that he had negotiated with Taylor. He stood to lose a lot if his crooked friend was removed from power. That's why he seemed to think at the time that the US didn't have the right to remove the "duly elected president of another country" (even though Taylor was widely seen as having stolen his election).

Of course, when Pat doesn't have an $8 million investment on the line it's apparently okay for the US to actually KILL duly elected presidents of other countries.

By the way, there isn't any doubt that Chavez various elections have been legitimate. Venezuela was crawling with election monitors during the last couple of elections, and the last polls I read showed he enjoyed a 70% approval rating.

As for Chavez's stance against US imperialism in Latin America... it's justified. Let's not forget that the Bush administration immediately recognized the leaders of the coup that tried to oust him in 2002. There are decades worth of examples throughout the region of US-backed coups that overthrew reform-oriented governments and installed corporate-friendly regimes.

Anyway, Pat Robertson really is a creepy little freak with a bad case of situational ethics. It's too bad that so many people take him seriously.

Wikipedia link on Hugo Chavez
Wikipedia on Pat Roberts
Wikipedia on Charles Taylor
Article on Robertson & Taylor's Relationship

Let's also not forget that Pat and Jerry Falwell went on the air after 9/11 and proceeded to lay out their theory that the attacks on America were the vengeance of God brought on us by their usual culture-war villains. Here's what they said:

Quote:

---

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters - the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats--what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact--if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged"? In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time--calling upon God.

PAT ROBERTSON: Amen LINK

---

Of course, they both had to apologize profusely after that exchange, but it just shows how sick and twisted their version of reality is, and how they'll use anything (even 9/11) to further their little culture war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Yes.

---

Well we've a real politician here. But i will talk like a politician too. If you invade Venezuela then Argentina and all South America will turn over you (probably the rest of the world too).
Now talking like some one that hates "witchhunters", i will stay as militia (because i don't have any military training) and when i cross you on the field i will take you and torture you we backstreet boys music until you ask for mercy.

Some people in USA still asks why they are hated. Well you have gived the fundamentalist groups and the terrorist the best proof that they could ever find.

And Gawain of Orkeny: Care to find information about the "Commune of Paris" or the speech of Trotski about potencial communism on England. That one thing never worked it's not suffient prove to say that it will never work, tough it worked.
Guess what is the other thing that never worked...Democracy.
Anyway that doesn't give you the right, in actual times, to just invade the country and make what you want, even if Chavez is killing a bunch of people.

~:confused: ok im a christian and i KNOW this guy is LOONEY! ~D (besides dumb stupid, oh maybe INSANE?)
do we have any proof of anything he is doing wrong?
dont know why people wacth tele-evangelists. :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
maybe nietzche was right,"there was only one true evangel..."(reffering to jesus)

and i would that hes to dumb to be anti christ.