A Closer Look at Pat Robertson

Accusations always sound righteous until the other side is heard, and how will the other side be heard on this forum? I don't have that information but without it, judging the man on the basis of these allegations would be foolish.As for your call to punish Robertson for his mistakes, sorry. When you and the Left in general apologize for your outrageous uncalled for remarks against Bush and his supporters I'll give it another thought.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-26-2005 08:06 PM

We are not a court of law here. You have levied some serious allegations. If the other side doesn't get a hearing I'd say you are seriously at fault for slanderous hearsay. I do not KNOW that contrary information exists, and I did not say I did. It is simply a general rule that you can't condemn a man without hearing his side of it. I appreciate your saying you are turning over a new leaf, and I did not mean to be provocative with my statement about Bush. I simply regard your statements about him to be as offensive and false as others here allege that Robertson's have been.

I don't know his side, Crash, that's the problem. I don't follow Pat Robertson. I'd have to research it and I've got a lot on my plate at the moment. Maybe somebody else will have the information.

There's ALWAYS another side. Accusing ANYBODY of something without hearing that person's version of the story is unfair. No, you aren't preventing knowledge of the other side, I merely want to remind you and others that there always IS another side, and the reason I'm doing it is that your condemnation is pretty extreme, and on top of the others here lately it seems to me that Pat Robertson has been as good as lynched without a trial.But that's all I have to say.

What is the matter with you and everybody? I don't KNOW the other side. I don't KNOW about the diamond mine, either Pat Robertson's or diamond mines in general or political issues about diamond mines or anything at all. I don't know what he does with the money, I don't know how involved he is in it, I don't know anything. But offhand owning something or being rich doesn't strike me as a heinous crime and the spin is on YOUR side so far, I haven't spun anything.Here's a proposition: It's always a good exercise to try to anticipate the opposition's possible defense.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-26-2005 11:49 PM

Just a caveat here. "Site after site" means nothing. Websites pick up information from other websites of the same political outlook, often verbatim, and on some issues you can find ONLY those views expressed and NEVER an opposition view. It does not mean there is no creditable defense against such views at all, it may mean that there is a concerted vendetta on against a particular person or political point of view.It is even POSSIBLE that Robertson doesn't know about the network of rumor against him, OR that he considers it such patent nonsense that he won't stoop to address it, OR that his lawyer is working on a libel case against them. The point is, you cannot tell ANYTHING from multiple websites. I have many times tried to track down a particular allegation and found it espoused by dozens of sites, all of them on the same political team, with not one dissenting voice to be found.This does not mean that the allegation is untrue, it just means it would not be prudent to assume it is true until there's evidence from other sources to corroborate it. So until you can find it discussed on a mainstream Christian site or a conservative site or a legal site or a neutral site or a major media site for that matter, I would take it with a huge grain of salt.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-27-2005 02:43 AM

Me too. Good post Randman, good reasoning.

Good clue. Sorry I'm being so useless on this one but I'm glad you are tracking these things down.

I heard it was a nun who said something like:Small minds talk about people,
Mediocre minds talk about events,
Great minds talk about ideas.A quick google didn't get me its author.

Mohammed is in fact among the figures displayed in the frieze at the top of the Supreme Court building, along with Moses and I forget who all else, but Muslims also honor Moses as the lawgiver and his laws as God's just laws. Other religions recognize similar laws, but the Ten Commandments happen to be THE most precise, pithy and complete statement of the universal moral laws. If I were you I'd worry about them NOT being there as the court officials who honor them must guarantee you a fair trial, protect you from false witnesses, refuse bribes to damage your case, administer punishment that is neither cruel nor unusual, and scrupulously seek your best interests. While other moral codes may affirm such principles more or less, unless you know that the court abides by them, what use are they to you? But if you could know that the court abides by the Ten Commandments it ought to be a relief to you. Yes, you could get prosecuted for stealing, for murder, for sexual exhibitionism (all sexual offenses come under the prohibition of adultery) or any other violation of the Ten Commandments, but you'd be prosecuted for those things in any decent court system in the world, and if I were you I'd give some thought to how you might be punished under *some* nonBiblical moral codes before you too quickly throw away our Biblical one. Actually it is, but that's not the point, as other legal codes are somewhat similar, as I say above, and again, you might prefer ours if you had some experience of some others.Note: Keeping religion out of the public square is, as Randman is saying, exactly NOT what the Constitution had in mind, exactly the opposite.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-27-2005 04:32 PM

Good stuff Randman. You've turned out some great clear informative posts on this thread.

How people FEEL is hardly the point. How a person feels depends on what they KNOW, and yes, if they understood it as I've explained it they ought to appreciate the Ten Commandments' spelling out of the universal moral law. They may recognize in most of it the laws they are already familiar with. What's in it to hate, Theodoric? Actually think about what's IN it. As I said, it is a statement of moral principles affirmed to one degree or another throughout the world in all history. Perhaps they could even appreciate the first commandments that affirm God as the giver of these laws. At one time you could have been prosecuted for profanity and blasphemy under Christian law, but that is no longer done. We could argue about whether that is good or bad. Does it cost you to avoid those things? But in any case we no longer do, and about who decides, the law code decides, supposedly established by our Legislatures who supposedly represent the people. It's written down. As I said, try out some other codes to see how THEY might deal with a sexual offense and then get back to the Ten Commandments. For one thing the First Amendment is being misused to prohibit the free exercise of religion by mere citizens, which is EXACTLY what it was supposed to prevent. It was ONLY to prevent CONGRESS from establishing a religion, and otherwise it was to guarantee full and free expression of religion by all citizens. But now it is being used to prevent people from displaying Bibles or religious slogans at work or at school, from having religious ceremonies at school which were established centuries ago, now all of a sudden prohibited in exact violation of the meaning of the First Amendment. There are hundreds of such violations of the amendment absurdly being done in the name of the amendment these days.

You don't read very well. I didn't say one word about your being required to obey the ten commandments.