RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I doubt that you've read Robertson's explanation of himself. I posted a link to it. There he did some outlining of the percieved threat, and never did he mention health care .

No, I did read it. It's chock full of unsubstantiated assertions and bias. Of course, PR would not give a toss about poor people getting a better deal.

I agree it's off topic though. We need a thread called "Increasingly deranged oil-frenzied rightwingers"

[Spock]

lmao

[Lief Erikson]

Spock, do you have any other ideas about where we should move?

[Lief Erikson]

You know Gaffer, you have pretty much handed me the argument, in my opinion. It's now no longer about whether or not this Christian leader is a terrorist or not. It's about whether Republicans or Democrats, right-wing or left-wing folks, are correct.

My main problem with what Mr. Robertson said is not in what he said, but in that he said it at all. It's not something that's right to say publicly, though discussing the matter privately with friends is another matter.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Spock, do you have any other ideas about where we should move?

Basically if you're discussing terrorism steeped in religion or religious teachings it should go in : RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

If you want to discuss how do a people or government deal with terrorists then go to: 2005 How Do We Deal With Terrorists

Discussing evolution vs Creationism or I.D. go to: Evidence for Creationism

I do feel that the topic: The Kansas Debate - how to teach
can be better addressed in the above thread but that's just me.

And we have a general Religion II discussion thread that nobody has posted in about a month.

In general, if you can keep your postings on topic, we've got topic threads to cover it. As I've said previously, you're welcome to continue here, it's just that to expand the possible 'audience' of interest, you might want to post in the proper thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay. I doubt that this line of discussion will last much longer anyway, so in my opinion, it probably doesn't make much difference.

[Spock]

So just bug the good ol' mod. eh?
...you guys have an endless supply of dialogue, I'd be surprised to see it end anytime soon

---------------------------------------------
Auda abu Tayi: [to Lawrence] I carry twenty-three great wounds, all got in battle. Seventy-five men have I killed with my own hands in battle. I scatter, I burn my enemies' tents. I take away their flocks and herds. The Turks pay me a golden treasure, yet I am poor! Because *I* am a river to my people!

[Lief Erikson]

Another point is that the current discussion really is fairly on-topic. It is a "Religious debate on terrorism". The discussion started with Islamic mullas preaching terrorism against us, and the religion behind it. Now it's been talking about a Christian evangelist supposedly preaching terrorism. It's still about terrorism, and still religious . . .

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Okay. I doubt that this line of discussion will last much longer anyway, so in my opinion, it probably doesn't make much difference.

....goodnight mrs. kalabash, wherever you are.....

[Lief Erikson]

(Mrs. Kalabesh snores loudly and turns over in her sleep)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You know Gaffer, you have pretty much handed me the argument, in my opinion. It's now no longer about whether or not this Christian leader is a terrorist or not. It's about whether Republicans or Democrats, right-wing or left-wing folks, are correct.

My main problem with what Mr. Robertson said is not in what he said, but in that he said it at all. It's not something that's right to say publicly, though discussing the matter privately with friends is another matter.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're mistaken.

I agree that it was wrong for him to say it. It's also true to say that Pat Robertson is an increasingly deranged, oil-frenzied right-winger. Each of those statements are independently true (IMO), however. The fact that he's an IDOFRW (for short) helps to explain why he would say those things.

The thing is that it's hard to get a concrete reason why Chavez is a danger, other than the really obvious one of how he's sitting on a big bunch of oil and has all sorts of seditious notions about redistributing wealth and helping poor people.

I would have thought those sorts of behaviour would attract support from Christian commentators, not incitements to assassination.

But then, I am forgetting how much you need your SUVs to drive to Church on Sundays.

[Insidious Rex]

Well said. There simply is no doubt his comments were about as hypocritical as you can get from so many perspectives. Hes supposedly a christian and hes preaching hate and death from the pulpit. Hes supposedly an american (democracy anyone?) and hes saying take out an elected official because hes not a friend of ours. It IS about POLITICAL assasinations. The Bush administration knows very well Chavez is an annoyance but not some kind of terrorist king pin. What folly. The problem is that hes got control of a state that has lots of oil and hes rather hostile with us at the moment and to a certain segment of conservative americans that combination is a good enough reason to kill someone. Why risk losing our grip on our favorite drug after all? Oil is that important to some people.

[Earniel]

What I'm surprised of is that no one seems to find it out-of-line that a religious figure is interfering with politics. (Separation of religion and state and all sorts) Most of us scream murder and terrorism when a muslim religious figure says anything about killing or removing other people from their positions. Why not now?

Not to mention this is rather abuse of his own position (religious figure and with a possibility to reach a lot of people through the TV-medium).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

hes saying take out an elected official because hes not a friend of ours.

He's saying, "take out this maniac powerhouse because he's a deadly enemy of ours."

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The thing is that it's hard to get a concrete reason why Chavez is a danger

I also am very curious to read him or some of his friends write up exactly why they think Chavez is a "terrific threat", and a dangerous enemy. What kinds of evidence they have that bring them to that conclusion would be very interesting to know.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

What I'm surprised of is that no one seems to find it out-of-line that a religious figure is interfering with politics. (Separation of religion and state and all sorts)

The Christian Coalition serves to organize Conservative Christians so that they will vote effectively on important issues. It is by nature political. Pat Robertson has always been very ready to talk about recent modern events. He doesn't dictate national policy, but the say he has and the influence he carries are great, and those he leads definitely have a strong influence upon the nation's future. That is only right in a democracy, I might add. The fact that he is religious shouldn't mean he doesn't have the right to speak his opinion, even when his opinion is religious and political.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Most of us scream murder and terrorism when a muslim religious figure says anything about killing or removing other people from their positions. Why not now?

We don't scream murder and terrorism because the Muslim extremists are killing people, but because we believe those that were killed to have been innocent.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

What I'm surprised of is that no one seems to find it out-of-line that a religious figure is interfering with politics. (Separation of religion and state and all sorts) Most of us scream murder and terrorism when a muslim religious figure says anything about killing or removing other people from their positions. Why not now?

Not to mention this is rather abuse of his own position (religious figure and with a possibility to reach a lot of people through the TV-medium).

From the (very) little I've seen on this (I've been out of town, and we turned the tv off for the summer, and this is the first place I've heard about it), I'd say Pat R. is way out of line, if he indeed was calling for the guy's assassination. I haven't been very impressed with Pat over the years. However, I still see a difference between what he did (calling for a government action against a political leader) and what I've seen some Muslim authorities do - call for any Muslim to kill any American/other-non-Muslim, and/or praise Muslims for killing any Americans/other-non-Muslims.

As far as him being a religious figure, IMO that's what freedom of religion is all about - we don't censor people, no matter what their religious background is, from expressing their views (except in the extreme case of things like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, and then the penalty applies to anyone, regardless of their religion). I would have no problem with a high-ranking American who is Muslim calling for people to vote for women to not drive or something like that - that's his right in this country.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We don't scream murder and terrorism because the Muslim extremists are killing people, but because we believe those that were killed to have been innocent.

good point.

[The Gaffer]

I accept that there is a clear difference between saying "kill all Americans" and "kill Chavez". On closer examination, I'm not too sure that the comparison would be 100% favourable towards the like of Robertson. From one perspective, the Muslim extremists are arguing from (albeit perverted) religious principle, whereas PR seems to be arguing from materialistic expediency.

As far we know, Chavez is innocent too. But surely there's more to morality than whether we think the victim deserves to die?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Christian Coalition serves to organize Conservative Christians so that they will vote effectively on important issues. It is by nature political. Pat Robertson has always been very ready to talk about recent modern events. He doesn't dictate national policy, but the say he has and the influence he carries are great, and those he leads definitely have a strong influence upon the nation's future. That is only right in a democracy, I might add. The fact that he is religious shouldn't mean he doesn't have the right to speak his opinion, even when his opinion is religious and political.

I think there is a difference between stating an opinion (I'm all for that) and calling on people to have somebody you don't like killed or forcefully removed in a country that is not even your own and where you have no say in who leads that country. The fact that he is religious is important IMO simply because he should know better than to use his influence and screen time for things like this.

We don't scream murder and terrorism because the Muslim extremists are killing people, but because we believe those that were killed to have been innocent.

So it's alright if people use their influence through preaching to incite other to kill as long as they kill bad people? *mind slightly boggles*

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I think there is a difference between stating an opinion (I'm all for that) and calling on people to have somebody you don't like killed or forcefully removed in a country that is not even your own and where you have no say in who leads that country. The fact that he is religious is important IMO simply because he should know better than to use his influence and screen time for things like this.


So it's alright if people use their influence through preaching to incite other to kill as long as they kill bad people? *mind slightly boggles*

Pat Robertson was WAY out of line - and I think about everyone knows it. He does have some measure of influence, but only to the extent that he keeps his credibility. I think he lost a lot of both with that statement he made.

Don't worry - he doesn't hold sway over hordes of people who will mindlessly follow him. He has said some things that a lot of people agree with (personally - I've never been a big fan), so they say "Yeah that's right!" and continue to listen to him. He says something completely nuts like this, and a lot of those people will say "What an idiot!" and stop listening.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

So it's alright if people use their influence through preaching to incite other to kill as long as they kill bad people? *mind slightly boggles*

Do you think it is appropriate for an American preacher to urge people to take up arms, if our country is in a state of war?