Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Closer Look at Pat Robertson
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 160 (237673)
08-27-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
08-27-2005 4:40 AM


Re: OK, I'm done for awhile on this...
What's wrong with that?
Well, I'm not sure. Did he inform the thousands of men and women who donated to his ministries that he was going to fund business ventures with them? If he did, did he refund donations to anyone who declined to float him a business loan in this way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 4:40 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 160 (237674)
08-27-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
08-27-2005 5:16 AM


Not sure where you went to take a break, but you appear to have come back in a lot better shape. Welcome back, and good job.
Thank you, Holmes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 08-27-2005 5:16 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 63 of 160 (237675)
08-27-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
08-27-2005 3:34 AM


Re: everyone should know the source
The verbal gaffes and mistakes,
Shame on you.
Robertson called for the murder of Chavez. To call that a "verbal gaffe" is to say that it is alright to encourage murder, as long as you don't make the mistake of saying so on a 700 club broadcast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:34 AM randman has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 64 of 160 (237677)
08-27-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
08-26-2005 11:21 PM


Yep, you're right.
So technically he could have been funding his presidential campaign in the 80's with blood MONEY.
How come noone is doing anything about this?
I suppose now he will feel some heat.
But is what he has done technically illegal?
Or will noone send him to court because the ones he's stealing from are his supporters?
I agree much with my brothers sentiment but when someone tries to represent christianity and is known for his christianity says evil and does evil things, these actions and words must be known, basically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 11:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 2:33 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 69 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:21 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 160 (237690)
08-27-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Nuggin
08-27-2005 3:53 AM


Re: Caution about internet information
quote:
It's not illegal for the non-profit org to lease it's equipment.
This is true, but you have to admit, it's pretty shady when an organization run by PR is leasing equipment to a business run by PR.
I'm not sure I agree with this. If the non-profit made a "profit" on its leasing and then used the money to further its mission, then I'm not sure I would call it shady.
On the other hand, as a teacher I understand that one of the purposes of professional ethics is to avoid even the appearance of impropiety. If that is your point, then I would agree that it is a good point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2005 3:53 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2005 1:25 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 66 of 160 (237703)
08-27-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chiroptera
08-27-2005 11:53 AM


Re: Caution about internet information
If the non-profit made a "profit" on its leasing and then used the money to further its mission, then I'm not sure I would call it shady.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the for-profit leasing a plane at severely slashed prices from a non-profit which can write off the cost of fuel, etc.
I don't pretend to be an accountant, but given what's been happening at Enron, Worldcom, et al. we have to raise an eyebrow at any business practice like this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 08-27-2005 11:53 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 08-27-2005 1:35 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 71 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:35 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 160 (237707)
08-27-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Nuggin
08-27-2005 1:25 PM


Ah, I see.
Yeah, that would be pretty shady alright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2005 1:25 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 160 (237722)
08-27-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Trump won
08-27-2005 9:46 AM


How come noone is doing anything about this?
1) He's one of the three most famous religious leaders in the country.
2) His businesses and contributions to the state of Virginia constitute millions in tax revenue and campaign funding.
3) He hosts religious programming that reaches millions of Americans who will react very, very negatively to any hint that he's being "persecuted" by the government. We've seen examples of that reaction in this very thread.
I suppose now he will feel some heat.
No, he won't. His comments will be dismissed as "mistakes" or "gaffes", despite an obvious pattern of similar statements that proves that that's what he meant to say in the first place. (I don't understand how you can "mistakenly" call for the assassination of a democratically-elected leader, but perhaps it can be explained to me.)
Christians will give him a pass, again, because he's one of the most powerful and influential Christians in the country, and Christians at every level benefit from his use of that power.
But is what he has done technically illegal?
Acccording to the Virginia consumer affairs board, yes, what he's done is technically illegal, not to mention obviously illegal.
I agree much with my brothers sentiment but when someone tries to represent christianity and is known for his christianity says evil and does evil things, these actions and words must be known, basically.
As an atheist I'm an outsider in the community of Christians. If you believe, as I do, that this man's ties to the body of Christian churches - and they are many - need to be severed, that's a process you're going to have to instigate yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Trump won, posted 08-27-2005 9:46 AM Trump won has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 160 (237729)
08-27-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Trump won
08-27-2005 9:46 AM


stealing?
How is making 380 million for the ministry stealing?
Let me ask you something. When a church has an endowment or another non-profit and invests in stocks and bonds, is that stealing too?
He took some seed money from donations; built up a TV channel; went public, and poured at least 380 million back into the non-profit.
It seems that his idea is to develop businesses so the ministries are not depandant on donations. Sorry, but that's not stealing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Trump won, posted 08-27-2005 9:46 AM Trump won has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 160 (237730)
08-27-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
08-27-2005 8:04 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
he rejects the doctrine of the separation of church and state
Wrong. He upholds the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state", which was a term considered to be coined by the Anabaptists, but used as far back as the Donatists. He rejects the modernist definition of that term, as he should, since it is merely an expression of religious bigotry towards religion in general and favoring secularism as an anti-religious ideology.
he has condemned groups he believes are "sinful."
So? You do the same thing in your own terms. You condemn YECers and religious conservatives all the time.
Also, he is correct that the term "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution is about encouraging freedom of religion, not discouraging it. The modernist version of separation is a violation of the "free exercise" clause because it seeks to ban any governmental participation of religious worship rather than governmental establishment in the law, and that's a distortion of the Constitution.
If the modernist myth was correct, Congressional chaplains and openign Congress with prayer should be illegal.
I'm not certain where you're getting your information but the man does, indeed, believe that religion - excuse me, his religion - and politics should be inextricable.
You prove my point. You seem to think the Constitution bans religion from politics, and it does no such thing at all. The fact you could make such a statement shows how far removed you are from understanding the concept of the 1st amendment.
The concept is not to ban religion from politics. The 1st amendment in fact guarantees the right of religion to be involved with politics.
No, the issue is that the State cannot limit religion, and cannot regulate religious doctrine. There is nothing in there though about religion not effecting non-religious laws in the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 8:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Yaro, posted 08-27-2005 3:48 PM randman has not replied
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 3:51 PM randman has replied
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 7:01 PM randman has replied
 Message 144 by FreddyFlash, posted 02-23-2006 9:02 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 71 of 160 (237734)
08-27-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Nuggin
08-27-2005 1:25 PM


Re: Caution about internet information
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the for-profit leasing a plane at severely slashed prices from a non-profit which can write off the cost of fuel, etc.
Nuggin, this is where you guys just make stuff up. It appears Robertson is the one pouring over 90% of his business profits back into the non-profits. There is no evidence he leased the plane at severely slashed prices, and he can write off the cost of fuel either way. It's a business expense. It matters not to the business whether the planes are leased from a non-profit or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2005 1:25 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 72 of 160 (237736)
08-27-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
08-27-2005 3:32 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Wrong. He upholds the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state", which was a term considered to be coined by the Anabaptists, but used as far back as the Donatists. He rejects the modernist definition of that term, as he should, since it is merely an expression of religious bigotry towards religion in general and favoring secularism as an anti-religious ideology.
LOL! you did not just go there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:32 PM randman has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 73 of 160 (237737)
08-27-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
08-27-2005 3:32 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Rand,
DO you even read what other people post?
Message 56
This post clearly shows YOU are wrong on Robertson's position on seperation of church and state. You are starting to sound like an apologist. Accept the reality, you are beginning to look rather silly.
I do not think I have heard crashfrog condemn anyone. Robertson has asked people to pray that Supreme Court justices die, that nukes be exploded at gov't institutions and tsunamais are your gods wrath.
YOur arguments on seperation of church and state go against 200 years of legal precedence. And the argument that the phrase "se

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:59 PM Theodoric has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 74 of 160 (237740)
08-27-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 3:51 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Theodric, I am not wrong. Read my posts, and take some time to study where the term came from.
Have you ever even heard of Anabaptism, or the various streams of theology involving the issue of Church/State marriage?
If you had, you would not exactly what I am talking about and know that I am telling the truth.
No Christian minister I have met in the US is against the original concept of separation of Church and State, but the concept has become twisted in modern times a means of seeking to denigrate religion and religious voices in areas of public policy and in areas of public worship, and that is contrary to the Constitution which forbids "the free exercise thereof" of religion.
PR does not want to use the government to regulate and coerce religion, and fully wants to maintain separation in that sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 3:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:06 PM randman has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 75 of 160 (237741)
08-27-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
08-27-2005 3:59 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
First of all the anabaptists and streams of theology have nothing to do with the laws of the United States.
If you had, you would not exactly what I am talking about and know that I am telling the truth.
You are speaking your truth.
I see no attempt to denigrate religion. I see an attempt to keep it out of the public sphere. IF the ten commandments are in courthouses, why not the koran or holy books of other religions. How do I as an atheist feel I can get a fair day in court if I walk past the 10 commandments on the way in? Why is your religion any better an any more deserving of veneration in the public sector than any other religions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 4:26 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 4:27 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024