SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Pat Robertson's comments

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
GaryE
Member



Joined: 2005/4/26
Posts: 376
Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania

 Re:


We are very close to having a severe problem overnight. The idea of lowering our energy rate in some way will not work until it has happened and any way you look at it this will take a long time. The only answer is to have a secure energy supply that can't be disrupted by terrorists or dictators in some oil rich country.

In Christ,
GaryE


_________________
Gary Eckenroth

 2005/8/24 16:54Profile









 Re:

We have our own oil resource in Alaska. Lets go get it.

But I also agree with Bubba. There are alternatives out there, but when someone goes to patent it the big oil companies buy 'em out.

As for this guy in Venezuela... I dont have a solution. Quite frankly I wasnt aware there was a problem until ol' Pat said what he said. But a broadcaster has and preacher like Robertson has no business insiting a riot in another country and causing our national security to be even more unstable. Thats reckless and irresponsible.

Krispy

 2005/8/24 17:03
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3229
Texas

 Re:

I don't know for a fact but I would bet the biggest oil field on earth is under israel.


_________________
Mr. Bill

 2005/8/24 17:12Profile









 plastic pat not the only one

"Murder on their minds: Robertson not alone among conservative media figures.



Pat Robertson's recent call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has sparked significant media coverage. But Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, is not the first to make a comment of this sort. Indeed, Media Matters for America has documented several other instances of conservative media figures advocating or musing about the execution of people with whom they disagree.

O'Reilly said LA Times' Kinsley wouldn't "get it" until terrorists "cut off his head"

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said that the Los Angeles Times editorial board wouldn't understand his objection to legal representation for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, until terrorists kill editorial page editor Michael Kinsley.

From the May 17 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: No, no. I want you to read it. Go to LATimes.com. I want everybody in the country to read this editorial, 'cause it just -- I mean, you'll be sitting there pounding the table like I did. How can they -- how can they think this way? How can anyone think this way? You know, "Shutting down Guantánamo and giving suspected terrorists legal protections would help restore our reputation abroad." No, it wouldn't. I mean that's like saying, well, if we're nicer to the people who want to KILL US, then the other people who want to KILL US will like us more. Does that make any sense to you? Do you think Osama [bin Laden] is gonna be more favorably disposed to the U.S. if we give the Guantánamo people lawyers?

E.D. HILL (co-host): No, of course not.

O'REILLY: I mean, but this is what they're saying. It is just -- you just sit there, you go, "They'll never get it until they grab Michael Kinsley out of his little house and they cut his head off." And maybe when the blade sinks in, he'll go, "Perhaps O'Reilly was right."


Glenn Beck confessed that he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore"

Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing [filmmaker] Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it."

From the May 17 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.

Coulter said the debate over Clinton should have been "whether to impeach or assassinate"

Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether President Bill Clinton "did it," but rather "whether to impeach or assassinate" him.

The quote appeared in Coulter's book High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery, 1998):

In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he "did it," even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."


 2005/8/24 18:02
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3229
Texas

 Re: plastic pat not the only one

Robertson apologizes for assassination remark
Associated Press



VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized today for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, only hours after he denied saying Chavez should be killed.

"Is it right to call for assassination?" Robertson said. "No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."

Chavez, whose country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush. He accuses the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club," Robertson had said: "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

He continued: "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Today, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

He later issued the apology on his Web site.

When the AP had called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. He also declined several interview requests today.

On Tuesday, the State Department called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."


_________________
Mr. Bill

 2005/8/24 18:41Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re: Pat Robertson's comments

Yes. Less politics, more preaching.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/8/25 4:48Profile









 Re: plastic pat not the only one

Neil, you're right... the people you quoted are loose cannons, but the issue is not about liberal or conservative politics. The issue is if someone who claims to be a preacher of the gospel and also broadcasts worldwide should be calling for the murder of a anyone... not to mention a head of state.

I do not expect any less from the people you've quoted. Bill O'Reilly is a Roman Catholic who apparently doesnt consider phone sex to be adultry. Glenn Beck is a Mormon. And Ann Coulter has never claimed to be a Christian so far as I know. So they speak and live out of the darkness of their hearts. No surprise there. I could point at liberals and quote some pretty outrageously vile junk that has flown from the mouths of Howard Dean and Michael Moore... just to name a few.

But again... this thread is NOT about politics. IT's about a Christian "leader" who needs to be quiet.

Krispy

 2005/8/25 6:23
GaryE
Member



Joined: 2005/4/26
Posts: 376
Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania

 Re: Religion and Politics

There is a problem with mixing religion and politics. If you write a letter to a newspaper about abortion you are writing something that is a religious and also a political opinion. If you are writing about the right to bear arms in the US you are writing something that is just a political opinion. It seems wise for the people who are on this site to stay with religious opinions and not carry over into political opinions.

Pat Robertson along with many other Christian leaders in the media are both religious and political leaders. When he made the statement that included the word assassination, he was making a political statement. Pat made a statement that he should not have said but to be fair with Pat, I have to say that in the few months I've read these posts I've read many notes that should not have been written. Probably most people who would now ridicule Pat have written or said something they regret.

When I was a child, I saw a cartoon that was trying to teach how to overthrow a country. The cartoon said, "you need to undermine the leaders of a country to overthrow that country". Politics work the same way. Political groups seem to try to get elected in the US by doing this. By telling a lie over and over many people believe the lie then those that believe the lie go and tell the lie too.

Religion also works the same way. Is it wise for me to dissemble a religious leader with my lips or someone else writing a post just because they say or write something that I disagree with or is different than my theology? Isn't it just pride that would cause me to do this instead of a heart to advance the Kingdom of God. There is a difference between saying an opinion and trying to cut someone down with our lips. Slander and tale bearing are sins. {tale bearers and a gossipers are often telling the truth}

How come no one suggested prayer for Pat? Who out there has recently prayed for GW?

In Christ,
GaryE




_________________
Gary Eckenroth

 2005/8/25 12:25Profile









 Re:

I disagree somewhat. I understand what you're saying, but we also have the right to address public (political) matters as well. A great majority of our Founding Fathers were believers. Where would we be if they did not address the political matters of the day? We'd still be under the rule of a king.

But then... as Mel said in "The Patriot"... why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? There was a lot of insight in that statement.

Krispy

 2005/8/25 13:11









 Jesus....help us please.

[img]http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2005-08/19097809.jpg[/img]

photocaption:George Roller, left, of the Center for Christian Statesmanship, and Jeremy Bouma, of the Statesmanship Institute, help offer seminars for members of Congress and staff, teaching them to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy.

COLUMN ONE
Grooming Politicians for Christ
Evangelical programs on Capitol Hill seek to mold a new generation of leaders who will answer not to voters, but to God.
By Stephanie Simon
Times Staff Writer

August 23, 2005

WASHINGTON — In the blue and gold elegance of the House speaker's private dining room, Jeremy Bouma bowed his head before eight young men and women who hope to one day lead the nation. He prayed that they might find wisdom in the Bible — and govern by its word.

"Holy Father, we thank you for providing us with guidance," said Bouma, who works for an influential televangelist. "Thank you, Lord, for these students. Build them up as your warriors and your ambassadors on Capitol Hill."

"Amen," the students murmured. Then they picked up their pens expectantly.

Nearly every Monday for six months, as many as a dozen congressional aides — many of them aspiring politicians — have gathered over takeout dinners to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy debates about tax rates, foreign aid, education, cloning and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Through seminars taught by conservative college professors and devout members of Congress, the students learn that serving country means first and always serving Christ.

They learn to view every vote as a religious duty, and to consider compromise a sin.

That puts them at the vanguard of a bold effort by evangelical conservatives to mold a new generation of leaders who will answer not to voters, but to God.

"We help them understand God's purpose for society," said Bouma, who coordinates the program, known as the Statesmanship Institute, for the Rev. D. James Kennedy.

At least 3.5 million Americans tune in to Kennedy's sermons, broadcast from Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Since 1995, the unabashedly political televangelist has also reached out to the Beltway elite with his Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington.

The center sponsors Bible studies, prayer meetings and free "Politics and Principle" lunches for members of Congress and their staffs, often drawing crowds in the hundreds.

The Statesmanship Institute, founded two years ago, offers more in-depth training for $345.

It's one of half a dozen evangelical leadership programs making steady inroads into Washington.

The most prominent is Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va., an hour's drive from the capital. The college was founded five years ago with the goal of turning out "Christian men and women who will lead our nation with timeless biblical values." Nearly every graduate works in government or with a conservative advocacy group.

The Witherspoon Fellowship has had similar success, placing its graduates in the White House, Congress, the State Department and legislatures nationwide. The fellowship brings 42 college students to Washington each year to study theology and politics — and to work at the conservative Family Research Council, which lobbies on such social issues as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Such programs share a commitment to developing leaders who read the Bible as a blueprint.

As Kennedy put it: "If we leave it to man to decide what's good and evil, there will be chaos."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I'm sure there are people who won't appreciate the fact that this class goes on here in the Capitol," Myal Greene said one recent evening.

He glanced around the stately dining room, reserved for the institute by a member of Congress. (House regulations allow private groups to hold events in the Capitol as long as they are noncommercial, nonpolitical and do not discriminate based on race, creed, color or national origin.)

To Greene, there could hardly be a more appropriate location. He considers his private faith and his public duty inseparable.

Greene, the deputy press secretary for a Republican congressman from Florida, signed up for the Statesmanship Institute in part because he felt his Christian ethics were under constant assault — from lobbyists offering him free steak dinners, from friends urging him to network over beers.

The seminars proved a revelation. In one, Greene learned that ministers ran many of America's earliest schools. He hadn't thought much about education policy before that class. Now he plans to fight for history lessons on the Founding Fathers' faith, science lessons drawn from the Book of Genesis and public school prayer.

"It's one thing to have a [biblically inspired] position on one or two issues," said Greene, 26, who was wearing a wristband printed with the slogan "Jesus Is My Homie." "This class has you look deeper. It gives you an intellectual consistency."

On this night, the topic was bioethics. As the students unwrapped deli sandwiches and brownies, prominent bioethicist Nigel M. deS. Cameron praised them for thinking about the "great questions of the day" through the prism of faith.

Too often, he added — to a few startled looks — "Christians are not noted for using their brains."

In an hourlong lecture, Cameron argued that Christians must move beyond denouncing abortion to see the "moral outrage" in other common practices, such as paying Ivy League students to donate eggs in the quest for a perfect baby.

"Taking human life made in God's image may not be as bad, from God's point of view, as making human life in your own image," said Cameron, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. "Our humanity, warts and all, is what we have been given to steward. It's not to be manipulated."

When Cameron called for questions, one student tentatively raised his hand to ask about embryonic stem cell research — specifically, the use of "spare" embryos, frozen in fertility clinics. "Under current practice, they're going to be discarded" unless they're used for research, he said. "What do we say about that, as Christians?"

Cameron did not hold back.

"They're going to die anyway, right?" he said, indignant. "We don't apply the same principle to death row inmates. They're going to die anyway, so why can't we get some use out of them? We'd be able to do some fascinating experiments.

"The principle of manipulating human life to get experimental benefit," Cameron said, "that is a very, very serious line to cross."

The philosophy animating Cameron's lecture — that federal law should be based on biblical precepts — troubles the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"This nation was founded specifically to avoid the government making religious and theological decisions," Lynn said. "We are not to turn the Holy Scriptures of any group into public policy."

Kennedy counters that evangelicals have every right to put up candidates who vote what they believe to be God's will — and let voters judge them.

To which Lynn responds, with exasperation: "He says that because he knows in a majority Christian country, the Christian view is going to be expressed by more voters. They have no problem imposing their biblical worldview on every American."

Evangelical conservatives acknowledge that's their goal.

And they now have a systematic plan for achieving it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Early evangelical leaders were determined social activists, championing causes such as the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of alcohol. But in the 1920s, a theological dispute split the movement. The more liberal ministers pushed for continued engagement in politics — and went on to take leading roles in the civil rights movement and Vietnam War protests.

The conservative faction called for withdrawing from politics and focusing instead on building up the church.

"Getting into politics didn't fix anything. It just diverted them from saving souls," said Jim Guth, a political science professor at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

With the legalization of abortion in 1973, some fundamentalists began to argue that they had an obligation to try to arrest society's moral decay.

"We realized we [were] having our little holy huddles but not having any influence in Washington," said George Roller, a former public school teacher who now directs Kennedy's Center for Christian Statesmanship.

Ministers such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson jumped headlong into politics. They succeeded in helping to elect conservatives, starting with President Reagan. "But things haven't changed very much," said Robert D. Stacey, chairman of the government department at Patrick Henry College.

"Our candidates tick off the right policy positions, but it turns out, once they're in office, they're willing to compromise an awful lot — not just to bend but to break," he said. "Now, religious conservatives are saying they want the real thing."

To develop such steadfast politicians, evangelicals are building on decades of work by nonprofit groups such as the Leadership Institute and Young America's Foundation, which train conservatives in grass-roots activism, effective campaigning, even how to launch a right-wing magazine.

The new evangelical initiatives reach out to the same up-and-coming leaders, but put them through courses that sound a lot like a seminary.

"If you're clinging to conservatism just because you like conservatism, you don't put yourself on the line for your beliefs," Stacey said. "Your positions need to come from something deeper and more meaningful."

That message resonates with Jessica Echard, 23, who completed the Statesmanship Institute last year.

Growing up in rural West Virginia, Echard believed passionately in her church's teachings against abortion, but thought little about such issues as economic policy or foreign trade.

The institute gave her a framework for evaluating those topics.

Now the director of the Eagle Forum, a conservative lobbying group founded by Phyllis Schlafly, Echard says Jesus would approve of a call for lower taxes: "God calls on us to be stewards of our [own] money."

She dips into the Bible to explain her opposition to most global treaties, reasoning that Americans have a holy obligation to protect their God-given freedom by avoiding foreign entanglements.

"The Scripture talks of taking every thought and making it captive to Christ, and that's what the Statesmanship Institute helps us do," Echard said.

Like other evangelical training programs, the institute avoids endorsing any party or position. Lecturers this year include a Democratic congressman and a Republican who says the Lord inspired him to buck President Bush by demanding a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Homework includes readings from the Bible — but also from Nietzsche, Engels, Machiavelli and Henry Kissinger.

"We don't tell our students what to think," Roller said.

Yet professors also make clear that "there absolutely is an objective truth," in the words of Paul J. Bonicelli, academic dean at Patrick Henry College.

Hannah Woody, for instance, came away from the institute's seminars confident that abolishing the Department of Education is not just a Republican goal, but also a Christian imperative.

The Bible gives parents — not some distant bureaucracy — the primary responsibility for raising children, said Woody, 26, who hopes to one day run for governor in her home state of North Carolina. (For now, she's working as a legislative assistant for a Republican congressman from Kansas.)

Kennedy offers a similar take on education policy in the gilt-edged, leather-bound Bible his staff delivers to each new member of Congress. In an introductory essay, Kennedy quotes Scripture to explain God's views on taxes, capital punishment, gay rights and a dozen other issues. Most of the policy prescriptions he finds in the Bible dovetail neatly with the Republican agenda.

That focus on legislative victory disturbs some evangelical leaders, who would prefer to work on spreading Christian values throughout society.

"Too many programs start with the idea that if we [enact] right-wing, conservative policies, we'll change America and God will be pleased," said Ryan Messmore, who runs a leadership academy aimed at helping young Christians share their faith through the arts, the media and other professions.

But to Rep. Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican, it's clear the institute is "doing the Lord's work."

The nation needs more politicians who take their cues from God, not Gallup, or "our morality will crumble," he warned. "We won't recognize America."

Roller shares that fear. So he ended the recent class on bioethics with a plea: "Heavenly Father, we pray you will help us to know how we should respond to these issues."

The students answered as one: "Amen."

 2005/8/25 22:27





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy