NationStates Jolt Archive

Pat Robertson warns town of God's wrath

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential conservative Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has a long record of similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.

Maybe the voting out of these pro-ID clowns was God's wrath...

That guy is living proof that the seperation between faith and politics (and I'm inferring church and state as well) is non-existing in the US.

This is ridiculous - the only thing worse is that many people apparently don't see a problem with it.

I still think my favorite Pat Robertson wingnut moments are the way he blames Ellen DeGeneres for everything from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina. That guy wants the cock so bad he can't stand it.

Wow...

Does this guy really believe what he says or is he just an attention whore?

That guy is living proof that the seperation between faith and politics (and I'm inferring church and state as well) is non-existing in the US.

This is ridiculous - the only thing worse is that many people apparently don't see a problem with it.

I'm pretty sure most people here in Michigan would call that guy crazy. I mean, I'm not opposed to believing in God and all. I believe in God myself! I'm opposed to nutjob bible thumpers who want my country to be a theocracy and force their madness down the whole country's throat.

That guy is living proof that the seperation between faith and politics (and I'm inferring church and state as well) is non-existing in the US.

This is ridiculous - the only thing worse is that many people apparently don't see a problem with it.
Damn right, we should censor his ass from this end of something really big to the other. How dare someone trample all over the 1st Amendment by proffessing a political opinion! How dare a man of The Church of WTF speak in public about politics! Only Atheists should be able to talk about anything in public. Everyone else should just accept their role as Untermenschen and shut-up!o;ˆh

That guy is living proof that the seperation between faith and politics (and I'm inferring church and state as well) is non-existing in the US.

This is ridiculous - the only thing worse is that many people apparently don't see a problem with it.In all fairness, when he ran in 1988, he got his ass handed to him really badly. I don't think he won a single primary.

Damn right, we should censor his ass from this end of something really big to the other. How dare someone trample all over the 1st Amendment by proffessing a political opinion! How dare a man of The Church of WTF speak in public about politics! Only Atheists should be able to talk about anything in public. Everyone else should just accept their role as Untermenschen and shut-up!o;ˆh
If you asked me (which you didn't, but that never bothered me :p ) then I would say that he's free to state his political opinion - but he needs to keep it seperate from his beliefs.
If he wants to say that Chavez is a bad man, and you should kill him, then that's stupid (and in any other context would be seen as advocacy of terrorism).
But if he uses "God" as justification, and literally uses people's beliefs as a political tool, as is so often the case in US elections, then that's two or three steps too far.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/plasmaphoenix/bbg.jpg

Mr Robinson, your existence is proof that benevolent intelligent design is a falsity. Please either accept the proof or rectify the anomaly.

If you asked me (which you didn't, but that never bothered me :p )
Since you really didn't ask me for my opinion, I don't think I can complain much about yours, can I? However, I feel weird so I'll randomly censor your post anyway.
then I would say that he's free to state his ********* opinion - but he needs to keep it seperate from his *******.
Except that anyone's opinion is bound to be based on their beliefs. If you believe that blowing shit up is wrong, then won't your politics reflect this by producing in you a firm Anti-War stance? And if you believe that Jesus is terrified that gays will take over the world if they gain the power of marriage, then that will produce Anti-Gay beliefs. Does that make it right? No. Does that make it sane? No. Does that mean that he doesn't have every right to do both? Provided he keeps it non-violent.
If he wants to say that Chavez is a bad man, and you should kill him, then that's stupid (and in any other context would be seen as advocacy of *********).
The world needs more assissinations, they're much less bloody then wars. And since announcing that someone should be killed makes them more defensive, if there was a plan to take out Chavez before, it has doubtless been scrapped now anyway.
But if he uses "***" as justification, and literally uses people's beliefs as a political tool, as is so often the case in US elections, then that's two or three steps too far.
He has the right to use the Alien Worm about to burst out of his chest as justification for all I care. And he can tell everyone else that there is a Space Jew out there trying to ingest their houses, I still don't care.

In Summary: Yes, Robertson = Crazy, but that doesn't mean he has any less right to be crazy in public then anyone else. In fact, the only reason he gets attention anymore is because people like to parade around the goofball who ran for president as a Republican as proof that all Republicans must be off their rockers.

Pat Robertson warns town of God's wrath

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential conservative Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has a long record of similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.
WRONG! He was never a "Republican Presidential Candidate." He was only a candidate for the Republican NOMINATION for Presidential Candidate. Kindaly refrain from making this dweeb into more than he actually was! Thank you.

Except that anyone's opinion is bound to be based on their beliefs. If you believe that blowing shit up is wrong, then won't your politics reflect this by producing in you a firm Anti-War stance? And if you believe that Jesus is terrified that gays will take over the world if they gain the power of marriage, then that will produce Anti-Gay beliefs. Does that make it right? No. Does that make it sane? No. Does that mean that he doesn't have every right to do both? Provided he keeps it non-violent.
As I said, he's free to state his views, and it is obvious that some people's views are copied from their religion of choice.
But this is not simply stating that he thinks the board should have stayed - this is stating that they turned away from God, and that God might just punish them. That's not his beliefs, that's a cynical use of religion and the importance it has in some people's lives for political purposes.
Both sides of the fence seem to do that kind of thing quite regularly in the US, and I disagree with it wholy and thoroughly. It's not like the people in France or Germany or Britain are really that much less religious (variations across regions notwithstanding), but somehow they manage to get through a presidential campaign without people telling them who God would vote for.

In Summary: Yes, Robertson = Crazy, but that doesn't mean he has any less right to be crazy in public then anyone else. In fact, the only reason he gets attention anymore is because people like to parade around the goofball who ran for president as a Republican as proof that all Republicans must be off their rockers.
Regardless, the lack of religious leadership in the protestant denomination means that there is no one to contradict him. I'm not sure how much I trust religious people (many of which presumably watch or watched his or some other televangelical's show) to simply shrug that kind of thing off.

I guess Pat Robertson is advocating the "God The Extortionist" view, huh?

"Christianity is like an extortion racket, see, and if you don't cough up, well, Lew here might have a little accident with your car, or your house, or your little girl. And then Mr Big wouldn't be able to do nothin' for you. He doesn't mean nothing by it, he likes you, see, but if you don't show him a little respect, you can't expect him to trouble himself with your worries, OK? Me and Vinnie'll be by tomorrow, and you will have that little donation ready."
-PZ Myers

As I said, he's free to state his views, and it is obvious that some people's views are copied from their religion of choice.
But this is not simply stating that he thinks the board should have stayed - this is stating that they turned away from God, and that God might just punish them. That's not his beliefs, that's a cynical use of religion and the importance it has in some people's lives for political purposes.
Both sides of the fence seem to do that kind of thing quite regularly in the US, and I disagree with it wholy and thoroughly. It's not like the people in France or Germany or Britain are really that much less religious (variations across regions notwithstanding), but somehow they manage to get through a presidential campaign without people telling them who God would vote for.
I don't really think that Pat Robertson is being manipulative so much as he really does believe that God is a Republican. Once you accept that there is a Boogey Man watching you, is it so hard to believe that he wouldn't be engrossed in politics? Especially when one side seems to be so dutiful at pandering to his believers?
Regardless, the lack of religious leadership in the protestant denomination means that there is no one to contradict him. I'm not sure how much I trust religious people (many of which presumably watch or watched his or some other televangelical's show) to simply shrug that kind of thing off.
While I can't speak for all protestants, my maternal relative and siblings are extremely annoyed by Pat and other televangelists. I, as the family heretic, can find them funny, but everyone else views them as a shame to the faith sort of thing.
Further, my experience with people who watch that sort of thing indicates that televangelists are about as effective at swaying people to their cause as DemocracyNow is at swaying people too theirs. Those people who already are crazy lap that stuff up, but everyone else just kind of looks at it askance and moves on with their lives.

WRONG! He was never a "Republican Presidential Candidate." He was only a candidate for the Republican NOMINATION for Presidential Candidate. Kindaly refrain from making this dweeb into more than he actually was! Thank you.huh?
the News article says he was a "Republican Presidential Candidate."

and you seem to confirm AND negate at the same time...:confused:

huh?
the News article says he was a "Republican Presidential Candidate."

and you seem to confirm AND negate at the same time...:confused:

I think Eut means he was hoping to get nominated as a Republican Presidential Candidate. But he never got the nomination.

I guess Pat Robertson is advocating the "God The Extortionist" view, huh?

"Christianity is like an extortion racket, see, and if you don't cough up, well, Lew here might have a little accident with your car, or your house, or your little girl. And then Mr Big wouldn't be able to do nothin' for you. He doesn't mean nothing by it, he likes you, see, but if you don't show him a little respect, you can't expect him to trouble himself with your worries, OK? Me and Vinnie'll be by tomorrow, and you will have that little donation ready."
-PZ Myers

Organized religion does sometimes look like organized crime eh? :p

I think Eut means he was hoping to get nominated as a Republican Presidential Candidate. But he never got the nomination.then someone has to tell CNN, ABC, NBC, The Washington Post, the LosAngelesTimes and all the others that they got it all wrong.

then someone has to tell CNN, ABC, NBC, The Washington Post, the LosAngelesTimes and all the others that they got it all wrong.

And you too! ;)

Robertson really ought to go back and read his Bible again...
Mark 13 (kjv):
21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.


Luke 6 (kjv):
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.


Methinks Mssr. Robertson's foundations are a wee bit shaky...

Oh, just the Christian deity? Meh. Call me when Shiva starts dancing...

Oh, just the Christian deity? Meh. Call me when Shiva starts dancing...
Shiva's completely burning the house down with his fancy moves at the minute. Didn't you know about his other job as an anthropomorphic representation of the destructive nature of mankind? Seriously, some of those metaphorical moves are batshit-insane.

And don't even get me started on the 'fro. Let's just say that is one funkay God of destruction.

Oh, just the Christian deity? Meh. Call me when Shiva starts dancing...
*call fass*

F) Wasssa?

OD) "..." ???? ....Drinking a beer... Watching the game...

F) WTF you call me for? is Shiva dancing?

OD) Who the Fuck is that bioch? :mad:

F) I think you got the wrong number.. :mad:

OD) fucking think you are fucking rigth... :mad:

*Fass hangs up*

You know, OD, you could have just bumped the thread. :D

Someone needs to check , the home for wayward buffons , to see how they keep letting Pat get out . One day he's going to hurt himself .

There are days, days when Pat or someone equally offensive says something stupid like this, that I really hope that there is a heaven and a hell, because I'd dearly love to see the look on Robertson's face the first time he runs into Malacoda's pitchfork.

(and a cookie to whoever can get that reference):D

Wow...

Does this guy really believe what he says or is he just an attention whore?
Pat Robertson is an attention whore. Also a money whore. (Or does that make him just a plain old whore?) Anyway, the point is, he pulls this crap just to get air time and punch up his demands for donations to that dumbass tv church-club of his. I blame the media for giving him the time of day. They're enablers.

In fact, there are a lot of people the media should quit wasting our time with. When are we going to hear stories like this: "A big thing happened in a place today. Here are pictures and quotes. The Republicans say it's bad for the Democrats. The Democrats say it's bad for the Republicans. Scott McClellan says the White House had nothing to do with it but intends to do something about it someday. Pat Robertson and Tom Cruise both had comments, but they're over and nobody cares. In other news..."

Pat Robertson is an attention whore. Also a money whore. (Or does that make him just a plain old whore?) Anyway, the point is, he pulls this crap just to get air time and punch up his demands for donations to that dumbass tv church-club of his. I blame the media for giving him the time of day. They're enablers.

In fact, there are a lot of people the media should quit wasting our time with. When are we going to hear stories like this: "A big thing happened in a place today. Here are pictures and quotes. The Republicans say it's bad for the Democrats. The Democrats say it's bad for the Republicans. Scott McClellan says the White House had nothing to do with it but intends to do something about it someday. Pat Robertson and Tom Cruise both had comments, but they're over and nobody cares. In other news..."
Ha! Almost enough to make me want to go into journalism. Almost.





Journalists...wouldn't trust one farther than I could throw him.

then someone has to tell CNN, ABC, NBC, The Washington Post, the LosAngelesTimes and all the others that they got it all wrong.
he was a republican candidate the same way you could say that howard dean was a democratic candidate.

he was a republican candidate the same way you could say that howard dean was a democratic candidate.
Yeah, although a better example in terms of the intelligence and quality of candidate is Lyndon LaRouche.

I guess Pat Robertson is advocating the "God The Extortionist" view, huh?

Yeh, that's a noice town you've got there. Be a shame if anyfin' were to ahh... if anyfin' were to 'appen to it, if you catch my drift there, son.

See you in church then, aye?

he was a republican candidate the same way you could say that howard dean was a democratic candidate.Howard Dean WAS a Democratic candidate...and he may present himself again.

Howard Dean WAS a Democratic candidate...and he may present himself again.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!! - Mr. Dean

Sorry... I actually saw the clip UNedited, where they didn't filter out the background noise... and that place was a ZOO... I doubt he even heard himself say that, let alone anyone who was there... everyone was so excited in there how could he not get excited himself? :)

Yeah, although a better example in terms of the intelligence and quality of candidate is Lyndon LaRouche.
true, but I was going for name recognition.

Howard Dean WAS a Democratic candidate...and he may present himself again.
a democratic candidate for the nomination though, not an actual candidate for the presidency because Kerry won the primary.

see the difference.

see the difference.no.

I Say the News articles are not lying

Makes me think of a song by Frank Zappa...

Does anyone know Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk???

no. I Say the News articles are not lying
of course not, misrepresenting though maybe, most think that a republican candidate for the presidency would have won the primary election. he didn't.

...most think that a republican candidate for the presidency would have won the primary election.I don't care what "most" think...

"most" can be wrong.

At one point..."most" though going to war with Iraq was a good Idea...(Now they all say they were against it :rolleyes: )

The article is correct.

I don't care what "most" think...

"most" can be wrong.

At one point..."most" though going to war with Iraq was a good Idea...(Now they all say they were against it :rolleyes: )

The article is correct.
whatever:rolleyes:

BTW Smunkeeville...I did not mean to be rude...

I have respect for the few that stands up for his ideals(rite or wrong)...and face the music...

like you. (i remeber you on my other thread ;) )

BTW Smunkeeville...I did not mean to be rude...

I have respect for the few that stands up for his ideals(rite or wrong)...and face the music...

like you. (i remeber you on my other thread ;) )
I do believe that I am right in this case, that he was a candidate for the nomination and not the party's candidate for that election.

I didn't think you were being rude, thanks for the compliment, sorry for the :rolleyes: I got frustrated over something that doesn't really matter. ;)

I'd treat it as a threat. If he wants to be a prick, I can be a prick too. Alas, I'm not in power...


...yet.

Even most evangelical Christians think Pat Robertson is insane if not downright evil. The way the guy acts is the embodiment of what the Bible tells us not to. He acts out of hatred instead of love. He is judgemental. He is greedy. etc. He does nothing but drive people away from Christianity. Perhaps I'm being a hypocrite for accusing him of being judgemental and passing judgent on him myself. But my goal isn't to judge him. I won't pretend to know how God will judge the man, but I have the backing of my religion to support me that this guy is a dangerous lunitic who is far out of line. It is important that fellow Christians renounce his false teachings and lunacy.

Even most evangelical Christians think Pat Robertson is insane if not downright evil. The way the guy acts is the embodiment of what the Bible tells us not to. He acts out of hatred instead of love. He is judgemental. He is greedy. etc. He does nothing but drive people away from Christianity. Perhaps I'm being a hypocrite for accusing him of being judgemental and passing judgent on him myself. But my goal isn't to judge him. I won't pretend to know how God will judge the man, but I have the backing of my religion to support me that this guy is a dangerous lunitic who is far out of line. It is important that fellow Christians renounce his false teachings and lunacy.
I have been saying the same thing for months around here. :D

then someone has to tell CNN, ABC, NBC, The Washington Post, the LosAngelesTimes and all the others that they got it all wrong.
And this comes as some sort of a surprise to you? Hellllohhh! :D

Actually, I think both sides are accurate--when candidates announce their aims, they say that they're running for the Presidency, that they are presidential candidates, even if they're only in the primary/caucus stage (assuming they're not independents like Ross Perot). The unspoken acknowledgement is that they have to advance beyond the primaries to become the party representative on the ballot.

So depending on your point of view, simply entering the race in the primary is equivalent to being a candidate for the Presidency, or you can only become the candidate once your party has chosen you. It seems to me that if you're being exclusionary, then maybe it's because you don't want that person associated with your party--I can see the temptation, considering the example of Lyndon LaRouche, but I tend toward the more expansive definition personally. That said, if some people want to exclude all but the final candidate, I'm willing to go along with that.

Actually, I think both sides are accurate--when candidates announce their aims, they say that they're running for the Presidency, that they are presidential candidates, even if they're only in the primary/caucus stage (assuming they're not independents like Ross Perot). The unspoken acknowledgement is that they have to advance beyond the primaries to become the party representative on the ballot.

So depending on your point of view, simply entering the race in the primary is equivalent to being a candidate for the Presidency, or you can only become the candidate once your party has chosen you. It seems to me that if you're being exclusionary, then maybe it's because you don't want that person associated with your party--I can see the temptation, considering the example of Lyndon LaRouche, but I tend toward the more expansive definition personally. That said, if some people want to exclude all but the final candidate, I'm willing to go along with that.
You can't be the Republican or Democratic or Libertarian, or whatever, candidate for the Presidency unless your Party endorses you. Ergo, calling Pat Robertson the ( or even "a" ) Republican Candidate for the Presidency is a misnomer. :p

How about using Pat Robertson as US embassador for Iran? You'd have a war within a week.

You can't be the Republican or Democratic or Libertarian, or whatever, candidate for the Presidency unless your Party endorses you. Ergo, calling Pat Robertson the ( or even "a" ) Republican Candidate for the Presidency is a misnomer. :p
You can't be "the" candidate, but you can be "a" candidate--that's the difference.:p

Seriously, though--under that definition, JFK was the only Kennedy to be a Presidential candidate, John McCain has never been one, but Pat Buchanan has been.

Pat Robertson warns town of God's wrath

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential conservative Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has a long record of similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.

Hmm, does the fact that God did not make him win the election not tell him he does NOT speak for God?

Does the fact that he called for the MURDER of another country's president not tell his followers that he is NOT speaking for God?

Just curious.

You can't be "the" candidate, but you can be "a" candidate--that's the difference.:p
:cough:bullshit:cough:

Al Gore was "a" candidate for the Presidency. GW Bush was "a" candidate for the Presidency. Patrick "I-Speak-For-God" was NOT "a" candiate for the Presidency.

You can't be "the" candidate, but you can be "a" candidate--that's the difference.:p

Seriously, though--under that definition, JFK was the only Kennedy to be a Presidential candidate, John McCain has never been one, but Pat Buchanan has been.
Here, here! I agree. He was a Condidate, but not the "the" candidate. Can you imagine if he won?! I might have nightmares!

Here, here! I agree. He was a Condidate, but not the "the" candidate. Can you imagine if he won?! I might have nightmares!he is one of the very rare persons in the universe..that can actually make Bush look good.

:D

Mr Robinson, your existence is proof that benevolent intelligent design is a falsity. Please either accept the proof or rectify the anomaly.

Now, THAT has to be one of the funniest posts I've seen in months.... :D

he is one of the very rare persons in the universe..that can actually make Bush look good.

:D

Only goes to show that all that "anyone but Bush" retoric is dangerous. We clearly don't want anyone but him.

Only goes to show that all that "anyone but Bush" retoric is dangerous. We clearly don't want anyone but him.Bush is gone...we have to look at the future now...

Do we want another Neocon? Do we want someone like Bush or Pat Roberson?

Wow...

Does this guy really believe what he says or is he just an attention whore?

An attention whore, definitely. He has a long and glorious history of saying some really stupid stuff. For example......

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.
-- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

An attention whore, definitely. He has a long and glorious history of saying some really stupid stuff. For example......

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.
-- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992
And I assume make porn, hot, lesbian porn.