Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Closer Look at Pat Robertson
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 160 (237591)
08-26-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
08-26-2005 9:22 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 9:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 11:26 PM Faith has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 160 (237592)
08-26-2005 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by joshua221
08-26-2005 11:11 PM


My side?
You appear to be defending Robertson, or, at least, taking an opposing position to mine.
Unless I was supposed to take your off-topic ad hominem attacks against me as agreement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by joshua221, posted 08-26-2005 11:11 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 160 (237593)
08-26-2005 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
08-26-2005 11:22 PM


I don't know his side, Crash, that's the problem.
Well then I guess I don't understand the problem. You act like I'm somehow preventing or concealing his side of the events in question, and I apologize in advance if I'm simply misunderstanding you, but I don't see how I'm doing that. I'm not aware that there is a "his side" to all this, and neither apparently are you.
So I guess I don't understand the basis for your criticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 11:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 11:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 160 (237594)
08-26-2005 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
08-26-2005 11:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 11:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 08-26-2005 11:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 12:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 160 (237595)
08-26-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
08-26-2005 11:34 PM


There's ALWAYS another side.
there's always spin, you mean.
crash has presented a pretty solid factual list of badness on the part of robertson, and from other sources i might add. this is not "i think pat robertson is a scumbag!" it's "he said this, he did this."
Accusing ANYBODY of something without hearing that person's version of the story is unfair.
and this thread exists so that if there is another side, it can be voiced. it is fair; this is a discussion site. the other side can ALWAYS be presented.
so basically, stop complaining that the other side isn't being said, and SAY IT. otherwise, this discussion is my favourite kind of canned fish:

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 11:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 11:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 160 (237596)
08-26-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by arachnophilia
08-26-2005 11:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 08-26-2005 11:44 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 08-27-2005 12:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 12:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2005 3:18 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 22 of 160 (237597)
08-26-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
08-26-2005 9:18 PM


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 don't think there was anything particularly new in the posts by crashfrog. I had heard it all before. It has been aired in the news media. Robertson is a public figure, by his own choice. I don't see a problem with public criticism.
You seem to think that we should not judge him. But we make personal judgements all the time. Before I make a purchase at a store, I make a judgement as to the basic honesty of the management of that store. It would be naive and foolish to do otherwise.
I made my personal judgement of Robertson a long time ago. His latest outburst was not any particular surprise. I find it entirely consistent with his character, as demonstrated in his earlier public behavior.
You are correct, that this is not a court of law. Nobody else is required to accept my judgement of Robertson. However, I am surely entitled to reach my own conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 9:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 160 (237600)
08-27-2005 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
08-26-2005 11:47 PM


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. ... the spin is on YOUR side so far, I haven't spun anything.
so, you don't know the other side, yet you're arguing for it? i'm not arguing for anything, except that you should know what you're talking about, and learn about the side you're defending -- not just blindly defend it.
personally, i don't care much either way. but as it stands, sitting around saying "you're not giving the other side a chance!" is not the same as presenting that side. you're presenting anything, you're distracting from the actual debate. that's a red herring.
either debate, or don't.
Here's a proposition: It's always a good exercise to try to anticipate the opposition's possible defense.
yes, that's fine. we're waiting for the defense to speak.
But offhand owning something or being rich doesn't strike me as a heinous crime
quote:
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 11:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 160 (237601)
08-27-2005 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
08-26-2005 11:34 PM


There's ALWAYS another side.
And what is it?
Could you be a bit clearer about what you're talking about? Do you believe that there's additional facts that I've neglected to present, or that there's an alternate interpretation of the facts?
Because when you have a situation where a state agency recommends charges to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General declines to prosecute, and it turns out that the AG has accepted thousands in contributions from the leader of the organization that would have been charged, there's only one reasonable interpretation of those facts. Any "other side" is going to be the dissembling of a dishonest person trying to exonerate themselves from facing the consequences of their misdeeds, and I don't understand what relevance that person's "side" is going to have.
Can you explain it to me?
But that's all I have to say.
That's the problem. You're exonerating Robertson based solely on the fact that "his side", whatever that is, hasn't been presented. And it's not going to be presented because your side won't do it - because as long as you never present his side, you have a basis to conclude that he's guiltless.
Since nobody can present his side, including, apparently, himself and his spokespeople, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no other side - the facts as I have presented them, and the conclusions those facts obviously dictate, are essentially correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 11:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 160 (237602)
08-27-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
08-26-2005 11:47 PM


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.
I have to point out, that didn't stop you from concluding that he was a basically good man and humanitarian. That didn't stop you from attacking his detractors.
Did you make the assertions that prompted me to start this thread in ignorance? And if that's the case are you willing to retract them now?
But offhand owning something or being rich doesn't strike me as a heinous crime
Do embezzlement and corruption strike you as heinous crimes? Violation of not-for-profit statutes?
It's always a good exercise to try to anticipate the opposition's possible defense.
Since neither you, nor Prophex, nor randman appear to be able to mount a defense, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no defense for Robertson's actions. Which, again, means that Robertson has no "side" worth hearing, as far as I can see.
If I'm wrong I hope you'll explain how.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 08-26-2005 11:47 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 08-27-2005 1:34 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 08-27-2005 2:06 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 08-27-2005 5:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 160 (237610)
08-27-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
08-27-2005 12:18 AM


Crashfrog
Back already, Crashfrog? Just couldn't stand it, could you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 12:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 27 of 160 (237612)
08-27-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
08-27-2005 12:18 AM


Hi crash
First off I'd like to say that I do appreciate the new softer crashfrog. I don't care for anybody's beliefs being mocked. I think that you have presented a constructive argument.
I haven't agreed with your reaction to Faith's posts because all she is saying is that everyone should have their day in court and that she isn't qualified to be his defender.
I have googled around to see if I could come up with some kind of defence for the charges that you have laid. I don't have much use for televangelists in general. It seems that so often the ministry is more about money than it is about spreading the Christian message.
This was my position regarding Robertson but when I read what you had written it seemed obvious to me that what you had posted had been written by someone who wanted to discredit Christianity in a very nasty vindictive way.
I got busy and googled a number of sites. I found the following which was interesting.
---" In his younger days, Robertson gave up worldly wealth to work in the ghettos of New York. But, says a former Coalition executive, 'Pat's changed'. She noted that he gave up his ordination as a Baptist minister in 1988. (He is still, incorrectly, called 'Reverend Pat' by the media.) His change in 1988 was accelerated when, according to his former television co-host Danuta Soderman Pfeiffer, 'he was ensnared by the idea that God called him to run for President of the United States'.
The 1988 run for the Oval Office, which began with Robertson announcing his endorsement by Highest Authority, was not some quixotic adventure. The race generated a mailing list of 3 million sullen Americans of the heartland, whose rage against the establishment was given voice by Robertson forming, out of defeat, the Christian Coalition." --
I found site after site that told about his wealth and also mentioned the diamond mines and of his support for questionable dictators. There seemed to be enough sites on the web that would make you think that he would refute it somewhere. I looked on the home web site of the "700 club" and there is no mention of any controversy. If he doesn't bother to deny it I can only assume that it is essentially true.
I have to come to the conclusion that most if not all of what you posted is likely to be truthful. Frankly I can't understand why he hasn't been charged by whatever American agency monitors registered charities.
I had no idea that things could get this bad. I hate blasphemy and this is about as blasphemous as things can get, assuming this is true, and as I say I can't find a good reason to think that it isn't.
Here is what the wikipedia has to say about it which supports the whole story.
Pat Robertson - Wikipedia
When it comes to Christians making the news it seems that it is the ones that use the Christian faith rather than the ones who live it.
Edited to add: I really hope that someone can show me that I'm wrong.
This message has been edited by GDR, 08-26-2005 11:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 12:18 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 2:43 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 7:55 AM GDR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 160 (237613)
08-27-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
08-26-2005 6:52 PM


the wiki article seems bogus
Note the following in the very first paragraph:
He is the host of the popular TV show The 700 Club, which airs on many channels in the United States and on CBN affiliates worldwide. His strongly conservative views and recently issued a statement calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez have made him the subject of much controversy, especially his statements in favor of the dissolution of the barrier between church and state and his condemnation of groups he believes to be living in sin.
Looks to me like someone hastily wrote an attack piece against the man. Plus, he has never advocated joining church and state, and condemning sin is nothing new for clergy-men.
Considering this is put forth in the very first paragraph, I would not consider anything written in it reliable, and would recommend discounting the entire article as anything more than a very biased piece masquerading as legitimate scholarship.
Crash, did you write this yourself?
This message has been edited by randman, 08-27-2005 02:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 6:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 8:04 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 160 (237615)
08-27-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
08-26-2005 6:52 PM


crash, you've got issues
First off, it's a free country and Robertson has a right to get rich. I understand he was very poor for many years, and came from a wealthy family (think his Dad was a senator) but turned away from law practice to serve the Lord, and did so in poverty for many years.
He has gotten involved in a lot of business ventures and gotten rich.
So what?
He has had a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth.
So what?
I'd say I'd stop giving to CBN except I don't give already. You seem to think Pat Robertson is a giant among evangelicals. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the case. He's not some sort of revered father of the faith in the eyes of the Christian community, but then again, few are. Most church groups and denominations have their own leaders they listen to.
As far as Pat, I do know Operation Blessing has done a lot of good. I think the university he started is a good thing, from what I've been told. His broadcast, basically the times I've seen it, I have no problem with it.
So sorry. I'm not all that worked up to do anything more than I was before, which was pretty much nothing, in regard to Pat Robertson. My only advice to him is something I also need to give to myself, which is to be careful not to let political opinions get in the way of being a disciple of the Lord.
As far as allegations of fraud, the state investigated and dropped it. Maybe he improperly used the planes, but considering the amount of money he pumps into those charities, I suspect the state thought better of prosecuting on hyper-technical grounds.
In other words, my impression is not that Pat is getting rich from the charitable foundations or anything like that, but that it's the other way around. He's not taking cash from them, but pouring cash into them.
Basically, without an accountant and a more exact investigatio, we can't say whether the law was broken. They could be arguing they paid Operation Blessing for the use of the planes, and may have done so, but if they took a charitable deduction for the money donated, that would be a wrong accounting error, but since they could also deduct the payments correctly as business expenses, I don't think the business would be prosecuted.
Should Operation Blessing be held accountable for letting it's planes be used in a for-profit business?
Once again, I think it comes back to accounting. A ministry can lease equipment legally for-profit and keep it's not-for-profit status under certain conditions where the primary focus is not-for-profit.
For example, you sometimes see cell-sites as steeples on church property. The church gets money by leasing space for the cell-site, but the church still maintains it's non-profit status.
So the fraud claim is weak at best, and probably not fraudulent, which is probably why the state did not prosecute.
But frankly, I don't care too much. It's not my job to go after Pat Robertson and make him pure. You can do that, crash.
Heck, I know of some public ministries that do have immorality of a nature that's very wrong, and if I were to go on a crusade in this area, I'd probably pick on them first, but it's a big world, and we have to go on the path we think we should be on.
My path this evening was to take my youngest son to the beach, for me to catch a redfish, and then come back and play hearts (card-game) with my kids.
Heck, I feel more guilty about posting so much than I do on whether I've done enough to keep Pat Robertson in line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 6:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 3:01 AM randman has not replied
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 8:16 AM randman has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 160 (237616)
08-27-2005 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by GDR
08-27-2005 2:06 AM


Caution about internet information
I found site after site that told about his wealth and also mentioned the diamond mines and of his support for questionable dictators. There seemed to be enough sites on the web that would make you think that he would refute it somewhere. I looked on the home web site of the "700 club" and there is no mention of any controversy. If he doesn't bother to deny it I can only assume that it is essentially true.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 08-27-2005 2:06 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Nuggin, posted 08-27-2005 3:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024