A Closer Look at Pat Robertson

The business that ran the mine is a different organization than the ministry - the African Development Corporation, for which I presume Robertson is a significant shareholder.Operation Blessing bought and operated the planes to the benefit of ADC. Is he profiting from the ministry? You tell me.

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?

Thank you, Holmes.

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. 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. Acccording to the Virginia consumer affairs board, yes, what he's done is technically illegal, not to mention obviously illegal. 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.

Didn't you just read where he says

quote:

---

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.

---

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. That's absolutely obvious from his own statements. Trying to argue otherwise is not going to be a position congruent with the facts. So, that's an accurate description of Robertson. Then when you write my Wiki biography, you're free to introduce me that way. What's the problem, here? The right of free expression of religion is granted to the people, not to the government. There's no violation of the First Amendment because that amendment grants rights to the people, not to the government. I believe that it is. I reject the Supreme Court's concept of "civil religion", something I find inherently unconstitutional. Unfortunately they're the authority in charge of interpreting the Constitution, not me. And not you.Nonetheless, I fail to see how any of this is on-topic. Robertson is the topic of this thread, not the First Amendment, and I question why you appear to be doing your level best to send us off the rails. I suspect you're having significant difficulty grappling with the arguments of the OP. I don't believe I've suggested that there is. But Robertson's views go father; his religion would necessitate religious laws, and he would excize persons who were not either Christians or Jews from office:

quote:

---

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program

---

Now, you may not believe that the First Amendment prevents that, but the main body of the document does assert, very clearly, that no religious test shall ever be required for office.Regardless, you've again failed to stay on-topic. The topic is the article's characterization of Robertson's views, which you appear now to accept, not the legitimacy of his views. I'm going to have to ask you again to stay on topic or refrain from posting.

I usually fall for it, too. Don't sweat it, just call them on it. It's clear they're baiting us off-topic because they have no effective answer for the arguments we've presented.

Neither American history nor church-state issues are on-topic in this thread.Your constant attempt to send us off the rails begins to look a little suspicious, Rand. Having trouble with the topic at hand?

I didn't contest it's factuality. I'm merely defending the assertion that this is Robertson's view, which you challenged but appear now to accept. As I said, the legitimacy of Robertson's views is not the topic of this thread. I believe I've already asserted that I believe that they are unconstitutional. Regardless, that is not the topic of this thread. That would be an inaccurate characterization of his views, which he goes on to clarify:

quote:

---

When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."

---

I don't see anything there about voting, do you? I've never said that he doesn't. This sub-topic is about the defense of an accurate characterization of his views, which you challenged and then accepted, not defending or attacking their legitimacy.Nonetheless, speech has consequences. Robertson is entitled to his views but I'm entitled to call for cable companies to stop using my money to fund speech I don't support.And, again, constitutional issues are not the topic of this thread.

That would be incorrect. Church-state issues were introduced into the thread by you, when you challenged the assertion that Robertson doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, a claim which you later appeared to abandon.I remind you again that church-state issues are not the topic of this thread; the topic of the thread is Pat Robertson and his credentials as a humanitarian.

Your claims have been consistently off-topic, except for a half-hearted attempt to contest minor issues of the OP. To date not a single post of yours has successfully contended with my argument; hence your repeated attempts to hijack the thread.

Since the article does not refer to any particular definition of the church-state separation, I don't see how this is relevant to the thread, or to a claim that the wiki article is somehow biased or inaccurate.Church-state issues are not on-topic in this thread. Again I must ask you to take these arguments to the thread specifically opened on that topic.

Max Blumenthal has a great article detailing how much money Pat Robertson, despite his calls for violence against democratically elected leaders and support of terrorist-sheltering dictators, stands to make through his charity Operation Blessing.Yes, that's right. The same charity that Robertson used to bilk his followers out of millions so that he could move diamond mining equipment around and market a diet shake of his own invention is now prominently listed on FEMA's website of charitable organizations that are accepting donations. FEMA.gov | Federal Emergency Management Agency - FEMA.gov is experiencing technical difficultiesThat brief aside brings us to this Robertson Watch update. What I had failed to uncover the first time around was that Robertson and the Christian Coalition he founded were successfully sued by a group of black employees for racist activities, including making the black employees enter the premises from a back entrance and segregating them during meals. The allegations were so damaging to the organization that Robertson was forced to resign.And now the Federal government is making sure that money from hard-working, generous Americans is flowing right into the pockets of this racist? I mean, let's get real. There's absolutely no guarantee that any donation to Operation Blessing is going to benefit any victim of Katrina.

Because more people watch his show than watch MSNBC.That's right. More people watch Robertson than watch the news. That's some 800,000 people. That's why prominent conservatives appear on his show; that's why Karl Rove consults Robertson and Dobson about Bush's judicial nominees.The Left Behind series is the most popular series of books among adults in the country. In what sense is Robertson not the representative of conservativism?