Reply With Quote
I believe the KKK has a right to assemble and say whatever they want, but I'm not going to jump to their defense if someone calls them racist.but I do believe a person has right to freedom express in this country...
No one said his statements violated any law or that he should be arrested for what he said. People are merely saying that his comments are outrageous and a little insane.
I believe the KKK has a right to assemble and say whatever they want, but I'm not going to jump to their defense if someone calls them racist.but I do believe a person has right to freedom express in this country...
But I think if a Black extremist or a Jewish extremist made crazy comments, then the KKK's racist comments are OK.
I think that's how it works.
There might be some kind of treaty between the groups, but I am not sure.
[QUOTE]Spurm, I did not support Robertson's thought about "taking out" Chavez nor did I support the statement he made to the residents of Dover.
PR has the same freedom of speech that you and I have and I strongly support that freedom. If you interpret that as unqualified support of Robertson then you are mistaken in your interpretation.
That being said I strongly disagree with your assertion that the opinions of those who are not in harmony with your own should be muted or are in need of censoring.
Spurm, I have never, ever heard anyone say that, not even once!And that message is not "If you love Jesus, you'll vote Republican."
Like it or not the Rep. platform embraces moral issues much more so than the Dems and that gets votes. There is a way for the Dems to siphon off some of those votes but they don't appear to be willing to do what it takes to swing those votes into their column.
[QUOTE]I don't particularly care to adhere your so called "forum response protocol". The last thing I'm going to do is to allow someone to dictate how I'm going to respond to a post.
IEveryone has their own preference in how they wish to debate an opposing view. When someone submits a post like the one you did where most of the points you make are ridiculously vague then I prefer to comment point by point in order to highlight the weakness of your thoughts.am sure we here post in more forums than this, and if one thing can be said that is true in all forums...
The people who breakup an entire post as to thwart segments as they see fit, are usually very counter-productive posters.
Addressing the style of debate, as you have done, rather than addressing the weakness of the points you attempted to make should be interpreted as nothing less than an admission that you post in unsubstantiable sound-bites. It just serves to highlight the superficial nature of your thoughts.
Is it so hard to respond with your own diatribe, or must you always stand on the shoulders of the person you criticizing?Again, I'm impressed with your ability to stay on task. It's definitely you , and this quote of yours underscores the point, who is attempting to stand on someones shoulders. Consider it a failed attempt.
Look, again, you are a drone. I am not partisan.
If you're going to qualify the dangerous, ultra-religious as the terrorist's presently terrorizing the world then of course I would agree. If you're putting PR into that category then you need to back it up with more than superfluous rhetorical cant.Yes, ultra-religious people ARE the most dangerous people in the world (ie terrorism). Just because one religion is mostly based in under-developed nations whilst another is worshipped in an industrialized nation doesnt make one less dangerous than the other.
Morality is an inextricable part of political issues and PR is under no obligation whatsoever to portray himself as a neutral observer of these issues.
[QUOTE][QUOTE=smeagol]
I understand what your saying but the truth of the matter is that he really doesn't have to be careful and because he's not he finds himself as the focus of attention he'd probably rather not have.When you are considered one of the most important evangelical leaders, with a TV show watched by millions, you have to be careful with what you say.
I don't have a problem with the right to critisize PR or the fact that he is critisized and I would suppose he also supports that right.If this were his only speech mishap. But it’s not (see someone else’s post above with quotes from the man)
I want him not to say the things he says. Just because he feeds the needy the man cannot be criticized?
I'm not going to look it up but you may be familiar with the scriptures where a father asked his two sons to do something;
The first son told the father that he would do it but he ended up not doing it.
The second son told the father that he would not do it but he ended up doing it.
The question posed was, "which of the two sons was justified"?
The point being is that the actions of a person are far more important than the the words of a person.
And that's why I put much more emphasis on what PR does than what he says.
That does not equate to supporting PR's words.
PR is a lot different from MM.
PR is a "religious" and "party political" (pres candidate) with a committed following, a group of people who support him financially, and actually believe what he says (that's why he keeps saying this ), and he claims he's channels God, rouses the rabble and the rabble believes him, probably vote the way he says God tells him they should vote.
MM is film maker, a joker, and enterntainer with left-wing politics. He has an influence through his film-making, but hardly a dues-paying following, or any official Democratic standing.
Jesse Jackson ran for president I guess he's just like PR.
Just go.
Robertson believes what he believes. Its no different than when leftist blamed 911 for being capitalist and imperialist. At least Roberstson doesn't sympathize with the terrorist or claim neutrality through all this. And so what if what he said inflames people. If what he said was biblicaly sound, then take it up with the bible. THe bible says GOd is soveriegn. That means he allows good and evil and he's the ultimate arbiter. Nothing happens with out GOd's approval. Satan cannot tempt or destroy without the approval of God. And since 911 happened, according to Biblical doctrine it happened because GOd let it. Therefore there is a reason why GOd let it so. And if you don't believe that way becuase your areligous, fine. But don't try to say what he said was not christian-like if you have no clue.Obviously Robertson being a man of the faith believes this and will not sell out to get approval from enemies who desire his defeat. Yes, the bible has been translated many times, but theoligians do have the early manuscripts, and they don't refute any of modern Christianity's basic tenets. If i were an evangelist, biblical truth would come first and idiotic political correctness would be last.
When he advocated HC's death, he made it quite clear that it's in the best interest of the U.S. and not his own. Nobody would of given a damn if Pat Buchanan said the same thing. This was a clear attempt on behalf of a radical secular minority's plan to paint PR as a monster to the american people.
I believe that if your a minister you should put biblical doctrine above political correctness. But if you serve an office you should follow the law first and then your faith second.
I'm not going to apologize for what PR said about HC. THis has nothing to do with Christianity to his critics. This has to do with Ideology.
Why the do some of you have such a hard time discerning the difference between censorship and criticism?
I want certain people to keep their mouth shut. I don't want to the Government to shut it for them. I want the public to ignore them so their comments are no longer relevant. That's not censorship.
^^well let the public speak out instead of launching your own crusade if that's your point. So far the public doesnt give a rats ass.
The entire concept of Free Speech seems to be way above your head.
^You have all the free speech you can have. But to spin what RObertson says and tell it to the public that he's a hypocrite, thats different and you should expect harsh criticism.
With all the free speech you have, you still cannot use it to prove that what he said was contradictory to scripture.
Luke 18:10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, I give hes of all that I get.' 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
I'm done here.
EDIT: Okay, one more...
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:2-9 RSV)
Last edited by Spurminator; 11-17-2005 at 07:19 PM.
I believe everyone knows the difference between the two Spurm but when your cirticism equates to the silencing of someones opinion you're splitting hairs when it comes to delineating between the two.
If I were on your side of the Robertson issue (I'm obviously not) it wouldn't be difficult to formulate arguements against what he says other than wishing he'd shut the heck up.
Mystery Men - I love that movie.
If we're gonna look at scripture through DNC lenses and thus come away with the interpretation that public giving is a crime, then we should withdraw monies from foreign aid since it is known publicly that we give.
But once again this is a futile attempt to discredit the man. Had you known him personally and you knew that his personal life is at odds with his public, then you could unload your venom on him. But rigth now, his only sin was to say Politically Incorrect statements.
Responding to someone by telling them to shutup means you have lost the arguement. It's hard for me to think of a reply that would carry less weight or be less substantial.
You know what...I give up with you Spurm, just shut the heck up yourself!!!
I was just kidding of course but it should be easy to see how weak and ineffective we are when our response to someones point of view amounts to nothing more than that.Responding to someone by telling them to shutup means you have lost the arguement. It's hard for me to think of a reply that would carry less weight or be less substantial.
You know what...I give up with you Spurm, just shut the heck up yourself!!!
Conclusion: Everyone in our Country enjoys the right to express himself. If our response is limited to unabashed anger, hostility and wishing the other person hadn't said something we are probably better off not responding or at least waiting until we can argue with something approaching constructive dialogue.
Did...
Did you just quote yourself? Twice?!
Right-e-o, then
You have a knack for secreting substandard deposits.
Just goes to show ya almost everyone's good at something.
The New York Times
November 18, 2005
Op-Ed Contributor
Shaking the Foundation of Faith
By SCOTT M. LIELL
Madison, Conn.
AN event that occurred 250 years ago today stands as a singular reminder that the war between faith and science in America did not start in Dover, Pa., where several school board members who promoted the teaching of intelligent design were voted out of office last week, or even in that Tennessee courthouse in 1925 where John Scopes was tried for teaching evolution. It has been a recurring theme in our history since the very seedtime of the republic.
In the early hours of Nov. 18, 1755, the most destructive earthquake ever recorded in the eastern United States struck at Cape Ann, about 30 miles north of Boston. "It continued near four minutes," wrote John Adams, then a recent Harvard graduate staying at his family home in Braintree, Mass. "The house seemed to rock and reel and crack as if it would fall in ruins about us."
The shock was felt as far away as Montreal and Chesapeake Bay. Throughout the New England countryside familiar springs stopped flowing and new ones appeared; stone walls were thrown down and cracks opened in the earth. Two hundred miles out to sea one ship was knocked about so violently that its crew believed it had run aground. In Boston, 100 chimneys toppled into the streets and more than 1,000 houses were damaged. A distiller's new cistern collapsed with such force that it brought down the entire building in which it was housed.
For Bostonians, the experience was unlike anything they had been through and their reactions varied widely. On the one side were a few who absorbed the experience with keen interest; as a natural phenomenon with natural causes. In this group were people like Adams and his favorite Harvard professor, John Winthrop, who gave a lecture on the science of earthquakes the following week.
To such people, the Cape Ann quake was an opportunity to learn something about a kind of event that was quite rare in their part of the world. While they knew nothing of plate tectonics and fault lines, the written accounts of these observers are replete with the sort of details that a modern seismologist would value. This was the reaction of men inspired by the still-new principles of natural philosophy, as science was called then, to believe that there were laws governing the operations of the world and that man could come to understand these laws through careful observation and reason.
The more typical mid-18th-century response to these kinds of events, however, was a desire to find supernatural explanations that while short on empirical detail, were usually long on ominous foreboding. To these folks earthquakes and hurricanes were simply just deserts for sins ranging from loose morals to having strayed from the true religion of their pilgrim forefathers.[/B]
The weeks after Nov. 18 saw an outpouring of sermons preached and articles published on the subject of the quake's divine origin. One strain of faith-based explanation, however, stands apart from the rest, not only for its popularity but also for its downright strangeness. According to a prominent Boston minister, the Rev. Thomas Prince of South Church, and his adherents, one novel practice in particular, together with its originator, was to blame for provoking this act of divine wrath; no, not that unlucky Boston distiller, but the lightning rod and its famous inventor, Benjamin Franklin.
It was a widespread belief in the 18th century that lightning was God's instrument of choice when manifesting his displeasure. In fact, it was a common practice to ring a town's church bells upon a storm's approach in an 11th-hour plea for mercy. To the grief of many a poor bell-ringer's widow, it was not a tactic that met with much success. But Franklin's idea of mounting pointed iron rods to the tops of tall buildings was so effective that their use quickly spread around the globe, making Franklin internationally famous two decades before he fixed his name to the Declaration of Independence.
And it was precisely the effectiveness of Franklin's invention that drew the blame of some in the city he had run away from at the age of 17. Lightning rods meddled with God's usual mode of reprimand, went this line of thinking, causing God to reach for another, more terrible weapon in his arsenal. "God shakes the earth because he is wroth," insisted Prince in a sermon he published soon after the quake. He warned his flock that the more lightning rods were erected around Boston, the more earthquakes would afflict the city as a result.
While not present at this sermon, Adams wrote that he heard idle talk of the "presumption of philosophers in erecting iron tods ... attempting to control the artillery of heaven," and dismissed it a drunken nonsense. For his part, Franklin was amused by the reaction. Why, he wryly asked, was it acceptable to build a roof to keep out the rain but blasphemy to place a rod upon the roof to keep out the lightning?
At the end of the day, it was never faith per se that stood in opposition to science; Franklin was ultimately as much a believer as Thomas Prince. Many people of faith - Unitarians, Quakers and those who, like most of the founding fathers, were deists - were prominent members of the scientific community. Rather, it was (and is) a specific type of belief that consistently finds itself at odds with science, one that is not found merely in America and is not limited to Christianity. It is the specific brand of faith that devalues reason and confers the mantle of infallible, absolute authority upon a leader or a book. It is only the priests of these sects, as Jefferson said, who "dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight."
IF people are dismayed to find fresh examples of the type of faith that blames victims of natural disasters - like Hurricane Katrina, the Asian tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake - for causing their own misery, it is comforting to see that the other kind of faith is also alive and well. For that, we need look no further than Franklin's adopted home state, Pennsylvania. No doubt many of those who voted for science on Election Day in Dover went to church the following Sunday.
For Franklin and his like-minded contemporaries, scientific pursuit was the ultimate act of faith; faith that there was an order to be discovered and faith in our ability to discover it.
Scott M. Liell is the author of the forthcoming "Founding Faith," about the religious beliefs of the founders.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Last edited by boutons; 11-19-2005 at 07:22 PM.
The bashing of Pat Robertson has gained some relatively conservative critics. Charles Krauthammer recently wrote a compelling piece on the issue of teaching intelligent design in schools as opposed to churches, and applauds the citizens of Dover for voting out those school board members who would have their schools teach ID. A good read:
LINK
Woudl everybody just shaddup for a second so i can think!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions