Giving God a bad name

When is media going to learn that just because somebody calls himself religious, or even a religious leader, that doesn’t mean he speaks for or leads all the other people who call themselves religious?

Pat Robertson is a hateful nutjob. Once in a while, when he says something particularly hateful and nutty — like arguing that Sharon’s stroke is God’s punishment for subdividing the holy land — media put the spotlight on it and even if they don’t say he’s a bilious bozo, the attention they give implies it. So one wonders why they ever treat him as a religious leader.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another alleged religious leader and the media get how dangerous he is when he says that Israel should be “wiped off the map” and that he hopes Sharon dies. You don’t hear media dare to suggest that he represents all Islam.

But when fringe extremists like the so-called American Family Association and the self-annointed Parents Television Council decry what they think is indecent or try to stop us from seeing a show they don’t approve of, media — not to mention the FCC — treat them as spokesman for the religious in a predominately religious nation. They are not.

I go to church every Sunday (well, not this Sunday) and call myself a Christian and Pat Robertson, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the AFA, and the PTC do not speak for me and have nothing to do with my view of religion, of God, or of decency.

  • Amen brother!

    • i had to type here,

  • Mumblix Grumph

    Jeff…the press wants people to think that religeous leaders are either like Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert or pedophile priests.

    There is a new TV show about a minister…his whole family is either gay, slutty or drug dealing…and his wife is a drunk! Typical religious folks (accodring it Hollywood).

  • My feelings exactly.

    Just when you think Pat Robertson can’t disgrace himself any further, he opens his mouth again.

  • W.J. Jones

    I think mainstream Christians wrote off Pat Robertson and his ilk years ago, if we ever even gave him a listen at all. I don’t know anybody who watches him even or pays attention to the “700 Club.”

    The problem is that the national media works in such a vacuum of disconnect and lazy journalism that Roberston is to religion what Jesse Jackson is to race. Their non-religious newsrooms also lump all Christians together, thinking we would follow Robertson off a cliff.

    Still, this isn’t the media’s fault: Robertson is just an idiot.

  • Maybe you could indicate which of the media reports actually say Pat Robertson is a spokesman for the religious. Personally, I haven’t seen any press reports that make that assertion. AP described Robertson as a “US Conservative Christian broadcaster”. Are any of those epithets inaccurate?

  • Big Al

    As an American, Pat Robertson is an embarrassment. I wonder if he really believes the nonsense that he spouts or whether he’s just trying to get attention.

  • If Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell aren’t leaders of the Religious Right, then who is?

  • W.J. Jones

    A leader by definition is someone who leads.

    Pat Robertson and Falwell don’t lead; they just stand in front of a camera and talk. That doesn’t make them my leader — just an easy go-to interview.

  • Angelos

    “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others… are known to have left-wing associations. It is very obvious that the Communists, as they do in all parts of the world, are taking advantage of a tense situation in our land, and are exploiting every incident to bring about violence and bloodshed.”
    –Scheduled Justice Sunday III speaker Rev. Jerry Falwell

    “I want to boldly affirm Uncle Tom. The black community must stop criticizing Uncle Tom. He is a role model.”
    –Scheduled Justice Sunday III speaker Rev. Wellington Boone

    They may not be your leaders, but they’re your defacto voices. If you don’t oppose them, and get them off the TV, off Fox, etc., all we can do is assume is that you are with them. And that’s pretty ugly, beig associated with this kind of “religion.”

  • Robertson and Fallwell certaintly don’t speak for me as a Christian.

    But there is a difference in calling yourslelf a Christian and being one.

    The first is merely a statement, the second is how you live.

    (Not saying you aren’t one of course, just pointing out the difference in the language of it)

  • It is interesting that although Falwell disolved the Moral Majority in 1989 and no longer leads any national organization, they still go to him for interviews.

    I will be liveblogging Justice Sunday III, which I had not even heard of previously.

    Angelo’s, I would be interested to know where you got those quotes. I have been trying to get info on some of the speakers since I am only really familiar with Dr. Dobson through his childrearing books.

  • Mr. Jarvis has cut to the core of why Pat Robertson is a tool of evil. By attributing outlandish and vengeful views to God, he encourages disrespect of Christianity among secular voters [thus helping keep the culture wars hot, and securing a permanent media role for himself].

    I believe he is the worst American of the last 25 years.

  • Angelos

    Those quotes, and more commentary here.

  • FWIW, Tom Shales:

    I cannot recall a series in which a greater number of characters seemed so desperately detestable — a series with a larger population of loathsome dolts. There ought to be a worse punishment than cancellation for a show that tries this hard to be offensive and, even at that crass task, manages to fail.

    At least two NBC affiliates have decided not to air “Book of Daniel” (premiering at 9 tonight on Channel 4 here) on the grounds that it’s objectionable, and whenever local stations do that, the banned show becomes automatically sympathetic and inviting. That would seem truer than ever in this age of the Patriot Act and a Federal Communications Commission running amok with fines and other penalties for using naughty words and showing naughty pictures.

    But “Book of Daniel” just barely merits First Amendment protection, flaunting its edginess with such wince-inducing contrivances as a teenage daughter who stuffs her teddy bears with pot, a grandma with Alzheimer’s who interrupts Sunday dinner to complain that her husband is “always showing me his penis,” a wife whose lesbian affair with her husband’s secretary started when the husband insisted both women join him in a threesome, and an Episcopal priest who pops Vicodins like Tic-Tacs and regularly converses with the living image of Jesus Christ.

    Actually, they don’t so much converse as swap jokes, with Jesus being a pushover for a bad gag and much too cool a guy to be judgmental about the deplorable pack of crackpots who make up the priest’s family and friends….

  • Christopher: Thanks for the link. The show may well be crap; I’ll judge that when I see it. But I have to say I’m shocked at Shales seeing boundaries to the First Amendment, even if just for making his joke.

  • They may be the voices of the “Religious Right”, but they do not speak for Christians. They are more concerned with politics than actually ministering to people.

    Instead of talking about other people and their deeds, I’d like to hear Falwell and Robertson explain how and why they both took money from Rev. Moon, who claims he is greater than Christ and is God.

  • kevin courtney

    Hey Angelos,
    Typical Lefty, you lift what you want from comments but ignore the context. Try reading the article Rev Boone wrote and your hypocrasy will be exposed.
    As for what these so called Christian leaders have to say, until the Left gets control, we will have “Freedom of Speech”, after that, only Leftist speech will be free. It is the most historically hateful of all, or did you forget that Hitler, Mao and Stalin, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others are all Socialists?

  • Ravo

    that’s pretty ugly, beig associated with this kind of “religion.”
    Angelos, I think that’s the very reason for these types of shows, rather than doing shows such as Jim Kouri suggests.

    Darwinian globalists are in the process of creating a new world order in which the Masters (themselves) will be served.

    The stumbling block is Christianity and the individualism that naturally occurs from belief in God as Sovereign of the universe. Hence the unrelenting and increasingly virulent hatred being spewed at Christians, Christmas, and all things relating to Christianity

    Linda Kimball’s thought provoking article
    ‘God is Dead,’ Now We’ll Create Our Global Village -or- Why Christians are Mentally Ill
    is quite illuminating.

  • Steve Strickland

    Others who have posted show great insight on why the MSM cover Pat Robertson and his ilk. Just as a network can defend The Book of Daniel as a wholesome, sympathetic, family oriented show that has been injustly judged on the basis of it’s promos while all the while using these same promos to garner an audience based on their expectation of a dysfunctional, totally messed up family with tintallating bits of gay/lesbian lifestyles, substance abuse and blasphemy thrown in, the same network(s) and print media can claim to be even-handed and fair in their coverage of Christianity while all the time choosing to use as spokespeople wack jobs like Robertson and Falwell. Who else speaks for Christians? Try the Catholic hiearchy, the heads of the mainstream denominations, the academicians at Wheaton, Houghton, Bethel, Calvin and a host of other respected educational institutions, Billy Graham, the pastors of the “mega” churches – almost anybody except Falwell & Robertson (I’m amazed Jim Swaggert and Jim Bakker aren’t trotted out as spokespersons!)

    Robertson and Falwell embody in themselves the persona of the Old Testament prophets while ignoring the example of the New Testament apostles. There is a pattern that is clearly discernible when one looks at MSM coverage of Robertson/Fawell et. al. and Hollywood productions such as The Book of Daniel, Bruce Almighty etc. that suggests that Christianity is at best foolish and shallow and at worst dangerous and grotesque. It is inconceiveable that Hollywod would produce a show swapping out the minister in the Book of Daniel for an Imam and Christ for Mohammed. The uproar from the Muslim world over their insensitivity, blasphemy and intolerance would be echoed by all the MSM and probably result in riots, suicide bombers and hostage taking. Only Christianity is appaently fair game.

  • Ravo

    (sorry…, the second and third paragraphs of my last post should be in quotes.)

    From Jim Kouri:

    “Why is it that Hollywood’s fantasies only entail the distortion of what is normal when a factual depiction of recent history would be just as entertaining—and would require absolutely no imagination?

    Sitcom: “Hey, Rev.” A weekly comedy series about a high-profile African-American Baptist minister who marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights movement, but now enjoys the life of a celebrity. The Reverend Jamie Johnson gets into hot water each week, but the Lord always gets him out of his self-made messes. For instance, one episode has him providing spiritual guidance to a U.S. president who can’t keep his trousers zipped, while Rev. Jamie is in the midst of being blackmailed by his latest former sex-partner. Rev. Jamie has to use his Blue Skies charity fund to pay off the woman and somehow the story hits the frontpages of the nation’s newspapers. Jamie’s wife (and Blue Skies CEO) is heard saying, “Show me the money!” Cut to commercial.

    Drama: “The Oval Office.” A Democrat President named Ben Clipper wins the election and quickly finds himself in hot water when his wife decides to fire the entire White House security staff so her friends can obtain a contract for their private security firm. While senators visit the White House to discuss this highly suspicious action on the part of the First Lady, one Republican senator trips over a stack of papers he quickly discovers are classified FBI files. President Clipper smiles an embarrassed smile and says, “How the hell did those get there?” Cut to commercial.

    (For Sweeps Week): In crossover shows, President Clipper guest stars on “Hey, Rev!” and Rev. Jamie guests on “The Oval Office.” For comedy relief, the Rev drops in unexpectedly to visit the president, not knowing that an intern is under Clipper’s desk, uh, not doing something. The First Lady is a hoot as she walks down the hall screaming obscenities at White House staff and throwing flower pots and other inanimate objects at her philandering husband. Now that would be must-see TV.”

    (of course THOSE kinds of sitcoms would not help the leftist “cause”)

  • Ravo

    You nailed it Steve.

    Further, those seeking the One World Order see Christianity as their main stumbling and are out to destroy it.

    “In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives, in particular, suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness.” (B.K. Eakman, Chronicles, Oct. 2004, pp. 28-29)


    “As usual with leftists, the true meaning of their words is couched in deceptive code. When the deceptions are peeled away we discover that ”dogmatism” refers to Christianity, ”mental rigidity” refers to ”individualism,” and ”uncertainty avoidance” really means that Christians are resistant to the ”change-through-consensus” process. (See: Psychopolitics: Erasing Christianity through the Consensus Process, Linda Kimball)”


    “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogma” (G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of The World Federation of Mental Health).”

    That, then is the quest of the left.

  • rick_d

    Despite ongoing efforts to shunt Robertson behind the couch with the dust bunnies, there’s no evidence that his access to the White House has been shut off. And that is why he continues to be a story.

  • Ravo

    I better get a cup of coffee…forgot …here’s the link to those quotes from Linda Kimball’s article in last post.

  • Ravo

    ahhh…and from that same article a quote from one who taught our children in 1970:

    “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with…allegiances to our founding fathers…our elected officials…his parents…belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to…teachers to make these sick children well—by creating the international child of the future” (Chester Pierce, Prof. of Educ. and Psychiatry at Harvard, 1970).

    Judging from all the leftists,….he succeeded.

  • kat

    I think the rule that applies to Christians is turn the other cheek while your critics knife you in the back. Our state religion has become political correctness but the rules do not apply to Christians–they are still fair game, but muslims, Jews, gays, etc. are protected.
    “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable” {Martin Bormann}. “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” { Hermann Rauschning}
    “I’ll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.”
    Adolf Hitler..sounds familiar, to what is said by lefties today.

  • Ravo, I read Linda Kimball’s “thought provoking article.” I think you need to quote better sources to support your argument. There is nothing “illuminating” in it unless you consider arrogance coupled with fuzzy thinking illuminating, writing off (among other things) every other religion that predates Christianity, as though the world began when Jesus was born. If we don’t subscribe to Christianity it means we must hate it. How about we just don’t subscribe to it? Being an individual that does not subscribe to Christianity implies that you are “anti-human.” Rubbish. This woman is extremely intolerant.

    “Jesus Christ, having been ”born into the darkness of the world” proved Himself to be the world’s ultimate Revolutionary and One Source of true Enlightenment [How?].  It was His gospel of ”Good News” that brought salvation to the souls of the lesser beings [Excuse me?].  He did this by revealing to them that each and every human person is created in the image of his Maker [What happened during the million years or so before the bible? Were people an imagined figment of some superbeing who whittled and planted bones just to see how they would look in the soil?], endowed with both intrinsic value and a soul within which reside both conscience and free-will [Sure, like an animal, a dog for instance, has no conscious mind].  Jesus Christ literally liberated the souls of all lesser beings [Excuse me?] from the miasma of ”oneness,” thereby bringing them out of the darkness of spiritual bondage [I am not “in bondage” thank you very much] and into the light where their spirits could soar freely as unique individuals [I can’t be a “unique individual” unless I subscribe to Christianity?], as they are before the eyes of their Maker.” [Who? How does she know there is a “Maker”? Who cares so much about our insignificant speck of cosmic dust that they chose this planet to put on the lifeforms that matter. BTW, those lifeforms are human beings. The rest don’t count. They don’t even have “souls”, the worthless little @#$%*]

    This is belief without thought. If Linda Kimball were an employee in a large corporation, we could call her a sycophant. If she followed a rock band, we could call her a groupie.

    Christianity, as with all faiths, is dogmatism, religious dogmatism. If you don’t agree with religion being dogma, you could always look up the word in the dictionary.

  • Ravo

    Our state religion has become political correctness.

    In the early ’60’s Nikita Kruschev screamed, “We will bury you!” — (from within).

    To protect ourselves, we built the most powerful military machine in history.

    We didn’t guard the political homefront.

    Leftist – Socialist – liberal activists gained office and continue today to destroy American law.

    Instead of socialistic communism – the left merely made a name change to “politically correct.

  • Bill Henry

    “Giving God a Bad Name”….I LOVE the title of this blog! All you have to do is read the bible and you can easily see why bible god deserves a REALLY bad name! I don’t know how anyone can come to the conclusion that “God is Love” after reading the bible. Chapter after chapter, Jehovah kills those who don’t exactly conform to his silly narrow rules. The devil, although never mentioned that often, actually comes off as a nice guy by comparison! Then we have Jesus in the new testament who brings us the doctrine of eternal torment in hell. As a life-long Atheist, I can’t imagine what it must be like to have to worship such a monster least you go to hell for eternity.

  • Drew

    Bill — You could not be more off-base. If you have read the Bible in its entirety, you still have not understood it. You can pick and choose passages in the Bible to construct any twisted theology you want…much like you can misrepresent any manuscript by taking selections out of context. The Lord is love, and if you read the Word as a whole, you will see this is beyond dispute.

  • Bill Henry

    Drew, you need to read this re god’s “love”:

  • Ravo

    according to the article..”lessor beings” was Egypt’s view of the Hebrews

    re: hell. In my limited researches…

    The ancient original bible scriptures don’t have Jesus preaching Hell. After all, His purpose on this earth was forgiveness…for ALL.

    Hell is a pagan Christian mistranslation of the Hebrew word Shoal and Hades, properly translated as grave wherever Hell appears in modern Bibles. Aeons should have been translated to “ages” not eternity.

  • JCambro

    Pat Robertson again? I cannot figure out for the life of me where the insanity starts and stops with this guy. Seriously, what is the craziest notion offered up in all of this?

    Is it the suggestion that Ariel Sharon (of all people?!?!) has angered God by going soft on Arabs? This guy has rolled over more Muslims than last year’s tsunami. Robertson’s God must be one bloodthirsty SOB!

    Or is it the suggestion that God has a keen personal interest in Earthly real estate? – And on a sliver of land in the Middle East in particular!??! (One would imagine that the almighty might prefer something a bit warmer, greener and more picturesque.)

    Actually, I like the suggestion that God personally dispenses assorted maladies and misfortunes (from strokes to assassins bullets) upon those who disobey his rather odd “commands” regarding real estate.

    Here I was thinking that Sharon had a stroke because he weighed well over 300 pounds, and that Rabin was assasinated because he was forced to govern people who are roughly as insane as…say…Pat Robertson? But no! It was God all along!

    If God exists – and acts as Robertson asserts that he does – then I prefer damnation. As Mark Twain once observed, “I’ll take Heaven for the weather, but give me Hell for the company!”

  • Drew

    I read it, and I repeat what I previously wrote. The Lord loved you, Bill, so much that He sent His Son to die for you. While you are on this earth, it is never too late to accept Him as your Savior. I hope you will, and I will pray for you.

  • Dan

    The real question is why does the media give a hoot what Pat Robertson says? Answer: They play him off as a Republican (he ran for president), conservative; and a putative spokesman for the Republican party and conservatives in general and a link to the Bush adminsitration. In other words; the media wishes to paint Republicans, conservatives, and the Bush (who they believe is another demented Christian) adminsitration with the broad brush, implying a connection where none really exists. In their eyes, Pat Robertson is a Christian, George Bush is a Christian; so if Pat Robertson is a Kook then George Bush must also be a Kook.

    It’s a somewhat suttle and smug form of bigotry against conservative Christians in general and the President specifically.

    Otherwise what difference does it make what Pat Robertson (who does not hold any public office, who is not paid with public funds, who is not a private adviser to the adminstration, says or does. Do you hear the media go on about what Louis Farrakhan says–no.

    As wrong as Robertson is, he has a right to his seemingly stupid views and the media should not want to “censor” his freedom of speach. This guy is not the Pope, but a slickster who has found a way to make himself rich and who has long since forgotten what his ministry is supposed to be about.

    By the way, just going to church and claiming to be a Christian, doesn’t make you one.

  • Ravo

    The way Churches have interpreted the Scriptures made little sense to me as well.

    It’s only since I discovered this site
    that I starting finding answers to all the inconsistencies I’d come across in Church teachings.

  • Ravo

    excellent point Dan….

    The real question is why does the media give a hoot what Pat Robertson says?

    implying a connection where none really exists.

    a form of bigotry against conservative Christians in general and the President specifically.

  • Ravo, in a recent, previous thread you said:

    “From the little I’ve read [in the bible] on the end times….I get there will be much Divine anger towards many Churches.”

    I asked you:

    Divine anger? Or just people blowing each other up?

    You didn’t answer.

    Instead, you suggested in a subsequent comment that “[the bible] isn’t literal and few who read it can understand it.”

    Now in this thread you are claiming some considerable insight into the meanings of the bible:

    “Hell is a pagan Christian mistranslation of the Hebrew word Shoal and Hades, properly translated as grave wherever Hell appears in modern Bibles. Aeons should have been translated to “ages” not eternity.”

    I think it is fair, considering the knowledge you are claiming of the bible and how it should be translated, to ask you again to answer my question.

    This “divine anger” you speak of against “many churches”, what do you mean exactly?

  • Dan, you’re right to ask why the media should want to report on what Robertson says. That makes more sense than to argue, as Jeff Jarvis has, that the media en masse somehow sees Robertson as a spokesman for Christianity. But, you also seem to believe that the entire media has it in for Bush and that is the only reason to report Robertson’s rantings. Some outlets might. But all of them? FOX News? You’ve got to be kidding.

    Other people posting here might not know anyone who watches the 700 Club or CBN, but figures from Nielsen (via the Philadelphia Inquirer – I’m sorry, I haven’t checked this independently but the numbers don’t seem that off base at first glance) indicate that CBN gets an average audience of close to a million viewers daily. On the one hand, that is less than half of one per cent of the US population. But it is a shedload of people who presumably like to listen to Robertson. That gives the man some apparent influence and, while he may be similarly deluded over this, Robertson seems to believe that he helped Bush back into power, calling him “God’s candidate”. Robertson said he thought US policy was wrong on Israel: in effect giving a similar warning to Bush as the one he delivered (after the fact) to Sharon.

    Now, not covering Robertson’s statements is not censorship: he has his own TV show and channel. But that might, in a lot of editors’ minds be enough to make the comments worth reporting, especially as the comments also carry that other key component for news: surprise. Not surprise that Robertson went off the deep end, but that he rounded on someone thought to be an ally. I don’t think you need a whole lot of conspiracy to justify publication – and you don’t need to invoke the idea that Robertson is seen as some kind of national Christian or conservative spokesman.

  • Read More: Howard Stern, religion

    Bit redundant, innit? ;)

  • kat

    I wonder if anyone would consider the imbeciles celebrating in the Arab world and praying for Sharon’s death as representatives of Islam or the Jews refusing to pray for Sharon, and in fact, rejoicing in his illness, as representatives of Jews. Why is the press not reporting this but making a big deal of Robertson? Should we attribute Bill Henry’s comments to all atheists just because there is one nutjob?

    “Thanks to God for answering our prayers,” said Abu Abir, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella group of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists responsible for firing hundreds of Qassam rockets and mortars at Jewish towns.

    “Our rockets were meant to hit Sharon, but instead they caused him enough stress that now he is having a stroke over them. … I am handing out candy and praying for his death.”

    Dr. Mahmud al-Zahar, Hamas chief in Gaza, after hearing the latest information, al-Zahar, who graduated from medical school in Cairo and is trained in general surgery, said, “As a doctor I can tell you if Sharon suffered a stroke, no matter how severe, there at least will be some sort of temporary paralysis or symptoms that will impair his ability to rule.”
    Al-Zahar said if Sharon dies “it will be a good thing for all the crimes he committees against the Palestinian people and all of humanity.”
    In Gaza City, there were reports of celebratory gunfire after the news of Sharon’s hospitalization was announced.
    To pretend that Robertson is a representative of Christians is ridiculous and low.

  • Bill Henry

    Drew, please spare me the prayers; they don’t work. “Sky King” is not listening. Why do you believers pray, anyway? If your god is totally in control, and has your life all figured out eons ahead of time, who the hell are you to petition HIM for what you, a puny, unworthy human being, want? The time wasted praying for something may be better used trying to come up with a solution on your own.

  • Ravo

    Noel – I claim no knowledge of the Bible on my own…just very interested in that site I mentioned that has renewed my interest and Faith by making more sense of Christianity [to me] than I was able to previously merely attending Churches.

    On that site somewhere, I read of Bible scriptures mentioning that some teachings within some Churches will stray from the Truth.

    Unfortunately, that site is so big…if I come across it again, I will make a note of it.

    As far as “Divine” anger, ….better would have been Divine “judgement” I guess. just a phrase to reference an accounting before God at the end times for all sin.

  • Drew

    I pray because the Lord asks us to “Pray often and continually.” As to your name-calling, all of us are indeed “unworthy,” and the Lord still asks us to present our requests to Him.

  • I claim no knowledge of the Bible on my own

    Ravo, if you claim you do not understand the bible, then you should not be arguing on behalf of relgion because by your own admission you do not know what you are talking about.

    I have had many conversations with people who support the bible and intelligent design, and whenever I question them too closely, they always tell me that they do not understand the bible. If you believe something to be the truth and hold it up to be truth, it is not acceptable to say when you cannot defend it that you do not understand it anyway, yet continue to reference it as the “one truth” to support your view.

  • Bill Henry

    Drew, I think the priesthood is your calling! You’ve got “the line” down pat!

    BTW, your hero Jesus said to pray in secret, in the closet, or something to that effect, I think he also meant no prayers on blogs…….I forgot the exact quote, tho.

  • Drew

    Bill, you are correct: Jesus taught us to pray in secret…not for others to hear, not to listen to yourself talk, etc. That’s exactly why I didn’t write out a prayer for you. Have a great weekend!

  • Justin

    Kudos on the Robertson bash. One bone to pick: the media hasn’t claimed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a religious leader.

    But they have called him “president,” a endearing term for a man who came to office in a rigged election in an obviously undemocratic country. “Leader” would be better.

  • Bill Henry

    Ok, Drew see you in church on Sunday…..just kidding! BTW, you might pray for Noel; he is a known blasphemer, and has, at times, made a mockery of all things holy. I think he may have gone so far as to deny the holy spirit. a transgression that, in end times, will cause his damnation. Other than that, he’s a helluva nice guy!

  • Ravo

    I told you from the get go I am a student per se of the Bible. I’d say the person most knowledgeable about the scriptures, alive today, is just that ..only a student.

    How ludicrous your self righteous position Noel. I guess even scientists must not talk about what they’ve learned…after all, there is always more to know and prove and the Great Noel says no commenting until 100% knowledge is attained.

    You ask, …I’ve answered to the best of my ability, which I’ve always stated is limited. I don’t know it all….now or ever. And surprise, surprise Noel, neither do you…or anyone for that matter.

    I understand basing anything on Faith is not acceptable to you.

    You demand science prove that which created it.

    Yet even some scientists believe in spiritual faith.

    Those of us who have Faith, believe our path thru life has but one purpose…to be humbled, to realize man will never escape evil without knowing Christ.

    How dare you pompously declare those here must be an expert on any subject commented on. It would be a pretty empty forum indeed.

  • First of all, I do not accept anything a scientist tells me unless he can show the evidence to support it. For example, I would not believe in germs unless I could look down a microscope and see them. The reason I respect science is because it does not arrogantly assume it has all the answers to eternal questions, like religion does, nor does it feel the need to make up the answers it does not have, again, like religion does. Instead, using our minds, we reason through those things we do not understand, rather than accepting as truth ancient superstitions and tribal myths that were formed before we even knew what caused disease.

    If some scientist comes on and seeks to duck challenging questions by saying: “Look, I’m only a student here and don’t fully understand what I am talking about,” it is reasonable for people to dismiss them if their theory sounds good but has no basis in fact. You cannot claim ignorance of a subject and expect us at the same time to take your views on it seriously.

    I understand basing anything on Faith is not acceptable to you.

    That’s because it is not acceptable. As Richard Dawkins put it: “What, afterall, is faith? It is a state of mind that leads people to believe something – it doesn’t matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway.

    I said ‘it doesn’t matter what’ the faithful believe, which suggests that people have faith in entirely daft, arbitrary things, like the electric monk in Douglas Adam’s delightful Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency. He was purpose-built to do your believing for you, and very successful at it. On the day that we meet him he unshakingly believes, against all the evidence, that everything in the world is pink.

    I don’t want to argue that things in which a particular individual has faith are necessarily daft. They may or may not be. The point is that there is no way of deciding whether they are, and no way of preferring one article of faith over another, because evidence is explicitly eschewed. Indeed the fact that true faith doesn’t need evidence is held up as its greatest virtue; this was the point of my quoting the story of Doubting Thomas, the only really admirable member of the apostles.”

    You demand science prove that which created it.

    Yes, especially if it tells me it was a bearded benevolent being who is going to give me a really nice present after I die if I am a good boy. What’s curious is that we demand science prove its claims while accepting absolutely no evidence, not a shred, from religion. That’s hypocrisy.

    Yet even some scientists believe in spiritual faith.

    So? This proves what exactly, beyond the fact that scientists have opinions. Show me a scientist who has proven a basis for their faith.

    our path thru life has but one purpose…to realize man will never escape evil without knowing Christ.

    Blanket statements such as these have no foundation. Based on what do you say this? An ancient book that you say has been mistranslated and admit you do not understand. Notice that I’m being kind enough to not point out that it is an impossible task to know Christ anyway since he has been dead for 2,000 years.

    How dare you pompously declare those here must be an expert on any subject commented on.

    How dare you arrogantly expect me to accept your perspective without providing a shred of evidence to support it?

  • “What’s curious is that we demand science prove its claims while accepting absolutely no evidence, not a shred, from religion. That’s hypocrisy.”

    That should read:

    What’s curious is that we demand science prove its claims while expecting absolutely no evidence, not a shred, from religion. That’s hypocrisy

  • President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another alleged religious leader and the media get how dangerous he is when he says that Israel should be “wiped off the map” and that he hopes Sharon dies. You don’t hear media dare to suggest that he represents all Islam.

    But when fringe extremists like the so-called American Family Association and the self-annointed Parents Television Council decry what they think is indecent or try to stop us from seeing a show they don’t approve of, media — not to mention the FCC — treat them as spokesman for the religious in a predominately religious nation. They are not.

    What is the cause of this phenomena? Is it the familiarity with Christianity that breeds this “special treatment”? Is it political correctness that insulates Islam (or any other religion) from the same treatment? I wonder…Thanks for the great post Jeff!

  • Pingback: Adam J. Lea » Mixing Business and Religion…()

  • Ravo

    Since Faith cannot be proven under accepted scientific protocols, apparently you, Noel, demand it cannot EVER be discussed until it can be proven with evidence acceptable to you.

    How dare you arrogantly expect me to accept your perspective without providing a shred of evidence to support it?

    Hello Noel to Earth:

    Discussions here don’t follow “scientific” protocols.

    No one is here to prove or convince, but to merely to
    share a conversation.

    I do not, nor have I ever, expected you to accept my perspective.

    I simply don’t give a rat’s ass what, where, when or who you accept or what you believe.

    I’ve tried to politely answer the questions you asked to the best of my ability. I (nor any mortal I know of), cannot scientifically prove Faith, and I’ve stated that obvious fact before to you.

    You remind me of a woman who used to post here solely to be argumentative. Don’t remember her name..Maryanne maybe.

    You do not get to define conversation here, Noel, by your rules…scientific or otherwise.

    Since you don’t “get that”, I do not wish to converse with you.

  • I simply don’t give a rat’s ass what, where, when or who you accept or what you believe.

    At last, Ravo, we can agree on something. I too do not give a rat’s ass for what people think nor do I expect people to give a rat’s ass for what I think. And I am not in here to be argumentative. I believe everything I have said and have provided reasons for why I have come to my conclusions.

    I never said faith or religion couldn’t be discussed. What I said was that people who admit they do not understand a subject have no credibility when they try to discuss it. Would you trust a doctor who told you he didn’t understand his subject? A decorator, a reporter, a lawyer, a witness on a jury who ‘feels’ so and so is guilty but can’t support their claim? If I put forward my opinion and could not support it, I would understand people having no respect for it.

    I (nor any mortal I know of), cannot scientifically prove Faith

    At this point, I do not think a little evidence would be amiss. Afterall, science has been required for centuries to back up what it claims with evidence. Is it so unreasonable to ask religion to do the same?

    Since you don’t “get that”, I do not wish to converse with you.

    We are in a debate. If you wish to back out, feeling insulted, because I am asking you uncomfortable questions you do not want to, or cannot, answer, or because I am making a case you cannot counter, well, that’s your choice. But I think you will find if you continue to join online discussions that people are not going to accept what you say at face value. They’re going to challenge your views and expect you to justify your reasons for believing what you do, whether it’s that you feel strawberry ice-cream is tastier than chocolate ice-cream or that you take God over science or, in my case, the incompleteness of science versus the all encompassing and eternal myth of ‘God’.

  • Pingback: Sawdust + Incense » Blog Archive » Around the Internets 1.7.05()

  • I have personally met Mr. Robertson (once, many moons ago). If there is one man whom I would NOT characterize as being hateful, it is Robertson.

    Sorry, it is you who are being less than charitable here. Your disagreement with Robertson’s exegesis — assuming even, for the sake of discussion, that your theology is 100% correct and his 100% wrong on this, or any other issue — does not make him hateful.

    Your placing Robertson and Iran’s Almondhead in the same category shows you to be churlish in the extreme: Robertson helps people via education, charity, and ministry. Almondhead threatens, imprisons, and executes people.

    Since you exude a tone of moral superiority vis-a-vis Mr. Roberston, for the record, how many Christian universities have you founded?

    Really, sir, you are a pitiably self-righteous boor.

  • Eileen

    A few words to Noel, with whom I do not intend to debate the following. I don’t have either the time or inclination, although I’d LOVE to have a sit down and discuss it with you in detail. This is purely for your consideration.

    First, Noel, I admire your intellect and you are of course entitled to your views. I take it you were raised in some church setting in Ireland, and later, upon learning to think for yourself, decided not to embrace faith in any form. I sort of did the same thing, as I was an avowed agnostic for 20 some years. You are trained in the law, are you not? As am I. I was a ‘prove it to me’ kind of gal for all those years. I found no proof with that attitude; that is to say, this idea that it’s up to someone outside of me to prove that which I can’t see. I even studied Philosophy of Religion and found no proof.

    Well, it took a series of simultaneous disasters….and an open, questioning heart, for me to begin to accept the POSSIBILITY of the existence of the Divine, Noel. Why? Because I saw evidence of it in my own disbelieving life. That first, soul stirring event occured almost 13 years ago. And those episodes of ‘proof’/confirmation continued in a myriad of times and ways thereafter. My last such experience was two days ago.

    This year I hope to get back to a book I’m writing on the subject. It is called “The Ladybug and the Bee”. Sounds pretty religious, right? Hint: it is spiritual, yes, but not the least bit religious.

    In the book, I simply relay my experiences…and those of my friends and loved ones who have ‘approached’ the issue of proving to one’s own satisfaction the existence of the Divine…in the same manner which I ‘stumbled upon’. Perhaps some time down the road it will get published. Perhaps not.

    For now, I will – indeed! – pray that you’ll stumble upon your own proof. In the absence of that, please be alert to *synchronicities*, Noel. It is but one aspect….

    Ravo, I appreciate your honesty, your intellect and your humble, kind heart. You are always a shining light in this forum.

  • Ravo

    Eileen…thank you for your words. I read every post of your that I come across, and truly would like to read your book when you are done.

    I simply do not know what Noel expects me to do or say when he insists I give him proof of something that exists nowhere but in the hearts of those who’ve taken up Christ’s invitation to accept Him.

    It’s a personal decision, a personal calling and there is NOTHING existing as earthly proof to help one in it’s decision other than the scriptures left by those who knew Christ.

    I don’t like to be impolite, but there is nothing that I can say or do to satisfy Noel, as I have admitted, yet he continues to ask me to give him something no one on this earth can give him…..scientific evidence that God is the Creator.

    I’m beginning to think from his continual hammering of everyone on this subject, that Noel would like it very much if he COULD be convinced, but as is, his scientific mind will not allow such a thing.

    Even clergymen, those who have devoted their entire existence to the Word of God, tell me they have their days of doubt.

    Perhaps God desires love by faith because any other way would mean a coerced fidelity.

    “God is obvious enough so that those who want to see Him can, but hidden enough so that those who don’t want to see Him can avoid Him — and be in a sense justified in their complaint about His secrecy”.
    —- from “Letters from a Skeptic”

    Faith is a decision, and you must want it enough to look for it.

    I remember a long ago situation where a couple I knew was in premarital marriage counseling. The young man insisted the woman didn’t really love him. On and on he went with example after example of why he wasn’t loved. Finally, the counselor spoke. He said, “if you are looking for proof that she doesn’t really love you, you will find examples of what you are looking for all day long. And of course the reverse is also true.

    I think Faith is a lot like that.

    Happy New Year Eileen…and thanks…

  • Jim S

    So far as I can tell there is actually no major religion that is a monolithic belief system. The only thing that Christians agree on is Christ as Savior. As soon as you get past that, including details about Him and his life and teachings Christians diverge in their beliefs. The same thing holds for Islam and Judaism. What Robertson represents is those extremely conservative Christians, almost inevitably Biblical literalists who listen to people like him and Falwell and vote Republican because those who they do listen to make it quite clear that “good Christians”, meaning their particular subset of Christianity should do so. While they make up a small percentage of the overall Christian population of the U.S. they are a committed group of people and have a disproportionate influence on Republican politics.

    The reason that I don’t particularly care for that “kind” of Christianity is their tendency to take any criticism of their desires as an attack on all of Christianity. Don’t think that your children’s teacher should lead prayers in the classroom? You’re anti-Christian. If you don’t think ID belongs in your school’s science classrooms you’re in league with the anti-Christ in their worldview. Christianity covers a broad spectrum of beliefs. The kind of people who follow Robertson tend to think that only they and theirs should count as being Christian. Now that’s intolerance.

  • Eileen

    Sending love to you, Ravo. Yes, love. For we are not ultimately here for any other reason.

    Ravo, I do believe in Jesus. I believe he is the Son of God. But I also believe we are ALL part and parcel of the Divine. Jesus was a perfect example of what loving is meant to be..

    Here is where I step back. I don’t believe we must embrace Jesus as our Only path to the Divine. I don’t believe in Heaven and Hell as any ‘religion’ describes it to be.

    I believe we are eternal souls, each of us making our own, individual, blessed way..

    I believe the ONLY reason we are here on this Earth is to learn how to love better….with unconditional love being the/our ultimate goal.

    I believe that any spiritual path…or any religion of light and love…will help us to progress in becoming better souls. Or….in fact…. no religion at all, Ravo! Just the practice of learning to love better, and recognizing *we are of and from the Same Divine*, no matter the name.

    And so I am a spiritualist. I embrace you. I respect you and your beliefs. And I have my own, solitary path which respects all others which lead to the Divine.

    G’night, Ravo, and All.

  • Eileen

    Jim S,

    Although a good part of the time I diverge from your commentary, with this I wholeheartedly concur: “So far as I can tell there is actually no major religion that is a monolithic belief system.” Amen. I, however, love to pick and choose that which I find of value in each of them.

    OR!? Maybe they ARE monolithic in the hearts and minds of their followers. Is there a problem here?

    Which is another reason I embrace all paths which lead to the Divine. Perfect or imperfect, whatever they may be….

    G’night, Jim S.

  • John Steven

    While Ahmadinejad is among the hardliners in Iran, he isn’t a ‘religious leader’ in any sense (unlike the previous president Khatami, who was a mid-ranking Shia clergyman and leader of the Militant Clerics Society political party). Ahmadinejad’s degree & training was in civil engineering, and his political base comes from his previous role in the Revolutionary Guards, support of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran and his political party, the Islamic Society of Engineers.

    He makes with the crazy talk not because he holds any clerical position or powers, but more because he’s a hardcore nationalist. So he’s not really comparable with that wacky Robertson in claiming a religious mantle for his pronouncements.

  • eagle05

    Pat Robertson is US Conservative Christian broadcaster and believer of a certain type of Christian doctrine of which George Bush is an apostle.

    It’s no wonder Robertson continues to make outlandish statements, and we have a President in Bush, who remains in denial about an illegal war he started, based on lies the media helped to push.

  • Good morning everyone! I see that I am in denial this morning. Apparently what I really want to do is walk with Jesus. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

    Eileen, you sound like a friend of mine, someone who is very peace loving and also rejects religion yet walks in the way of ‘love and light’. We have had many conversations. I don’t know what your personal experiences are that led you to change your mind and since you don’t want to discuss them publicly, the reasons for why must be personal. I find this ‘spiritualism’ that is not based on any religion easier to accept, but something interesting is that whenever anything becomes organized, a cult and then a religion is formed out of it. From what I can see, and I’m sure I’ll be lampooned for this, Christianity is a big, powerful cult. If you look back in history, you can see why Christianity sprang up. Judaism had become very rigid around the time of Jesus and in need of some loosening up. There were many speakers for alternative views going around, Jesus by far the most successful. It doesn’t make him the son of a ‘God.’

    Christianity has become over the last 2,000 years extremely intolerant, professing to be the only correct religion, encapsulated in comments such as “Jesus is the one path to salvation.” It has been allowed to intrude on America’s separation between church and state which I think is one of America’s greatest virtues. It is now trying to tell us what we can and cannot say about it, censoring that which it doesn’t like. If we don’t agree with its claims or live our lives in ways it considers ‘sinful’, hellfire and damnation awaits us in the afterlife, and in this life, let’s face it, many people were burned alive for not agreeing with or conforming to the teachings of the church.

    There are moderate Christians. Not every Christian is a radical, but too many of them who are radicals are maneuvering themselves into a position where they can sanctimoniously dictate how we should be living our lives and what we should be believing in. If people want to laugh at their ridiculous claims, based as they are on no evidence whatsoever, they are subject to being censored. If someone’s faith is as strong as they claim, I see no reason why they cannot tolerate people disagreeing with them. After all, you know you are right, right? Well, I believe I am right and can therefore tolerate people disagreeing with me and don’t mind defending my point of view.

    The rise of the religious right is a predictable reaction to the decay in our society, but people who are secular are not necessarily without morals or virtues or incapable of being loving anymore than people who say they walk with Jesus do not necessarily possess morals and virtues or are capable of being loving. These things are not the sole preserve of religion. I’ll agree society has a few problems, but I do not think the answers to those problems lie in a religious cult that is based on many-thousand-year-old tribal myths. I think the answers lie within ourselves, treating each other honestly and decently and developing our minds, and this requires, in part, for us to raise our children to look up to these ideals. I also teach my children to be able to laugh at themselves since I believe a sense of humor is one of the human races’ most redeeming characteristics.

    By all means, believe whatever you want to believe, hold whatever opinions you want to hold. But if you come onto a public forum to profess those opinions or beliefs, I think you can expect people to ask you to support what you’re claiming and if you admit you do not understand your subject, then I think it’s reasonable for people to discount your point of view.

  • Bill Henry


    I just did some “bible study” to see if I could come up with anything remotely proclaiming “God’s love”, but only keep coming up with MANY more verses such as these:

    Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

    Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

    Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

    Then Jesus comes along in the NT and confirms the violent nature of this father:
    Luke 12:4,5: And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

    Actually, one OT writer had Jehovah figured out correctly! This is a verse that I had not been aware of until just now, and it makes my day!
    Hebrews 10:31: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
    The bible never ceases to amaze this Atheist! Drew, are we reading the same bible? I use the King James version. You must have the “Apologists Guide to Holy Scripture”.

  • Drew

    Bill — The Lord stopped Abraham before he sacrificed Isaac. The Lord’s goal was to test Abraham’s obedience, not to take his son. I encourage you to keep reading the Bible, b/c you have not even scratched the surface if you don’t see God’s love and evidence of it.

    About praying for you, I am unsure why this would be offensive to you. If I am wrong, and there is no God, then you are no worse off. If I am right, then you are also no worse off, and there is a chance you might be much better off. You are in a no-lose situation when I am praying for you.

  • Ed

    May God save us from “Christians” such as yourself. I have no idea if Robertson is correct in his assertion that God punished Sharon for his actions. I have mixed emotions on Sharon’s actions. All that said, I do know the great threat to real Christianity is people who call themselves Christians and then fail to condemn evil. TV shows such as NBC’s most recent offering of garbage are “evil” and will be treated by all true Christians as such. The other “Christians” will equivocate and rationalize, eventually failing to condemn it or even recognize its evil origin.

  • Angelos

    Rabbi Daniel Lapin, head of Toward Tradition, and Gary Bauer, former GOP presidential candidate, will co-chair the American Alliance of Jews and Christians, or AAJC. A statement released yesterday calls the effort “a unique synthesis of Jewish authenticity and Christian grass-roots muscle.”

    The new cooperative, headquartered in Washington, D.C., will have an immediate constituency via Bauer’s approximately 100,000-strong e-mail list. According to the statement, the advisory board of the organization will include Dr. James Dobson, Charles Colson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Rev. Pat Robertson, Pastor Rick Scarborough, as well as Rabbi Barry Freundel, Rabbi David Novak, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Michael Medved, John Uhlmann and Jack Abramoff.

    Haaahahaahaahhahahahaha ahaahaahahaaha ahahahhaaha ahaa hahaahaha ah……

    All the crooks in one room, under the guise of religious unity. Isn’t this just the perfect summation of the Bush presidency? Call it whatever you want, it’s all about the money for the cronies.

  • Drew, my wife says Abraham is her favorite from the old testament, but says she feels sorry for the life Abraham’s wife must have endured. There she was, locked in the desert with her crazy husband, no medication, no psychiatrists, having to say “Yes, dear” whenever he had that look in his eye so that he wouldn’t slaughter anyone, or things like “I’m so sorry my love. It’s just that I’m making a very special dinner tonight and I need ALL the knives” …. must have been a pretty scary life, far beyond the usual complaints most women have about their husbands.

  • Ravo

    Good Morning Eileen, thanks for your “gift”. :-)

    I think all our paths will eventually have the same destination, as Christ promised. It’s through life here that we are made ready. Unfortunately, encountering and experiencing the opposite of love and good will is part of what teaches us what we need to know. Our travails here serve that purpose but it will take the end times for some to be “convinced”. All part of His Plan.

    Noel wrote:

    “It has been allowed to intrude on America’s separation between church and state which I think is one of America’s greatest virtues.”

    “The First Amendment has never required a negative or even position neutrality toward religion.”

    The First Amendment was to protect folks of various religionsfrom the state, not the state from religion.

    Excerpts from columnist Thomas Sowell that perhaps address it best:

    “The ACLU invokes that famous phrase about a “wall of separation between church and state” — a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution but somehow considered to be part of Constitutional law.

    The Constitution forbad Congress from creating “an establishment of religion” but this was no mysterious concept known only to deep thinking legal scholars.

    The people who wrote the Constitution all knew exactly what an establishment of religion was because they had all lived under one — the established Church of England.

    Being established meant that everyone had to pay taxes to support that church, whether they belonged to it or not, and that people who didn’t belong to the established church could not be admitted to various institutions or be appointed to certain official positions.” — Thomas Sowell

  • Angelos

    Oh, and here’s the anti-gay pastor accused of soliciting oral sex from a cop.

    That’s Senior Pastor.

    Which is exactly why religion is a joke. All the things that are natural in humanity – the urge to do things that feel good (alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.) – have been defined as bad by some powerful men in robes and silly hats. And stupid people buy it.

    This guy is gay. But he’s spent his whole life not only denying he was gay, but working for an institution that tells him how bad he (secretly) is. No wonder religion leads to self-hatered and insanity. If he just lived his life, he would have been a much happier person.

    As long as there have been animals and apes, they have discovered and repeatedly used “drugs”, whether catnip, loco-weed, coca leaves, mushrooms, pot, alcohol, etc. Hey, what’s this? EXCELLENT! And smart people still do. Feels good? Do it, and be happy. Unless you work for a company that drug tests. In which case quit that job toot-sweet. But I kid. I stopped smoking pot years ago.

    I didn’t watch Book of Daniel last night, and don’t plan to. Friday is for things other than TV. But is it really impossible that this guy’s kids would be a little messed up? And he himself? Humans are contradiction machines. The struggle between the expedient wrong and the more difficult right. Between a and b, c and d, e and f, etc. And just because your father’s a preacher, doesn’t mean you will pass all these tests and live a “perfect” life. Just because you’re father’s a junkie doesn’t mean you’ll fail all these tests. Everyone finds their own way. Of course, this is television, they need an issue to cover every week so they can all hug at the end of the episode, so these “problems” are highly concentrated in one family. But since when is that new?

    Of course, the religious wacknuts just HAVE to go and prove their idiocy, by complaining that the show portrays religion in a poor light. Now, I’m sure that if they had acutally watched an episode, talked to the shows creators and actors, they would have discovered that the church (and the appearances by Jesus) are a source of a lot of solutions to the weekly story arcs. And wouldn’t that be nice?

    But they go and prove, once again, how much denial, how little reality, it really takes to be religious. Nope, this preacher’s family isn’t lily-white and perfect, so this is offensive. You know, because the member of the “Kings of Leon,” a GREAT rock-n-roll band, aren’t the four sons of a Southern preacher. Nope, never happened.

  • Angelos

    Ah Ravo, and of course, your very words just prove that “separation of church and state,” whether a statutory phrase or not, is a concept that is very important to this country, and we are in serious danger of having it violated by Dear Leader.

    Did you happen to notice that churches that have Peace Vigils are investigated by the IRS and threatened with revocation of their tax-exempt status (because, you know, being for peace is totally political, as opposed to one of the church’s primary missions), but churches that pledge their support for Bush and have pro-Alito rallies get million-dollar donations under Bush’s unconstitutional faith-based initiative programs.

    We need protection FROM the church, the crooked, lying, hypocritical motherfuckers that are trying to turn my country into a theocracy.

    I don’t believe in your God. Millions of other don’t either. You do your thing, we’ll do ours. When you try to force it on us, we fight back. Remember, this isn’t a War on Christianty, it’s self-defense.

  • Ravo, how about protecting us from religious interference through the state?

    Perhaps you will answer another question I have: would you like America to become a (Christian) theocracy, that is, a government ruled by or subject to religious authority?

    It’s a straight question. Please provide a straight answer.

  • kat

    The worst kind of so-called Christian is the sheep in wolves’ clothing. Hell, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry pretend to be good Christians. Hitler pretended to be a Christian, but, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God’s name to gain support. The anti-gay,gay pastor you mention is just following an agenda. I’m not one bit surprised. I don’tforget the 3% of priests who have raped little boys,but I sure as hell don’t see them as religious, but as perverted Each human being has moral weaknesses and unwise behaviors,some worse than others.
    {We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
    We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding.
    All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.}
    {Reprinted from The Congressional Record. First printed in Gay Community News,February 15-21 1987 }

  • Ravo

    The state cannot establish a religion and forbid others.

    I agree that is as it should be.

    Atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, all religions or non religions etc. are to be protected FROM the state.

    Our laws, however, came into being guided by Christine doctrine.

    Those laws have guided us into becoming the greatest and most free nation on earth. I want that to continue.

    Patrick Henry, 1775: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom here.”

    A Total Success. Get over it.

  • I think it’s fine for religions to be protected from the state and also fine for the state to be protected from religions. What’s happening now in America is that one religion, Christianity, is being allowed to move in to influence the state. As John Danforth, the moderate Christian and former Missouri Senator, put it:

    “Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.”

    Ravo, I didn’t ask you if “the state [could or could not] establish a religion and forbid others.” I asked you if you would like America to become a (Christian) theocracy, that is, a government ruled by or subject to religious authority?

    Is that a yes or a no?

  • Ravo


    America was founded by Christians.
    Christian doctrine is the basis of our laws and Constitution.

    Does that describe ruled or subject by? (our thoughts need to be oranges to oranges before yes or no suffices)

    If that is your …then my answer is yes as I want to continue as is, and with our current success.

    If you mean establish a “Church of America” so to speak, and add on powers under it….then my answer is no.

  • Angelos

    Kat is officially certifiable.

    But this is funny too. Of course, the only place you find that text is on faux-RELIGIOUS web sites, and bible-thumping blogs, and web sites of phony organizations with the name “Family” it them. See, there’s your first clue – if it says Family, it’s about money and politics, not about family. They could give a shit about your family. They just want your donation.

    Also, kat, EVERY one of those sites that posted this text as a WARNING ABOUT THE GAYS conveniently omitted this first paragraph:

    This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.


    How’s being stupid and gullible feel?

  • Eileen


    You’re welcome, Ravo.

    Noel, I’m sure I’d enjoy meeting your friend and joining in your discussions. And it’s not that I have a problem sharing my experiences – hell, I’m hoping the book will eventually be published! It’s just that I can’t do them justice in a few paragraphs on a blog site. Nor do I think it’s appropriate to ‘borrow’ JJ’s bandwidth for that purpose. My awakening (if you want to call it that) was based on a series of events, with the door opening a bit wider with each experience..

    But I can tell you my prior doubts and need for proof ran long and deep. My mom told me when I was FOUR I asked, “Why do we have to go to church every Sunday when JESUS never even comes?!” She said I was really PO’d when I asked. I’m sure I was. :)

  • Bill Henry


    Yes, of course I know the full story about Abe and his son; but just the very thought of a god leading a father to believe he would have to kill his son makes him a fiend, unworthy of worship. You said “If I am right, then you are also no worse off, and there is a chance you might be much better off. You are in a no-lose situation when I am praying for you.” This is the classic Pasqual’s Wager. I am not necessarily in a no-lose situation, however. What if you were to devote the time you now spend praying to the study of medicine, for example. In the future, would it not be possible that you could be in on the discovery of some cure that might wind up saving ME along with many others? Just think how the world would be today if Robert Ingersoll’s advice had been taken centuries ago: “Hands that help are better far than lips that pray”. Too many people spent too much time praying and doing other religious oriented activities (crusades, and other assorted anti-human behavior) from roughly the end of the Roman Empire to about 1500. This period included what’s known as the Dark Ages. Today, since many insist on believing in much of the doctrine that shaped this unfortunate time for mankind, I refer to the present as the High-tech Dark Age.

  • kat

    Angelos–exactly–just as mad as Pat Robertson’s messages. Just because some gay leader is a certified nutjob and posts that shit, does not mean all gays are like him.

  • America was founded by Christians.
    Christian doctrine is the basis of our laws and Constitution.

    Does that describe ruled or subject by? (our thoughts need to be oranges to oranges before yes or no suffices)

    Ravo, it is true that the Founders of America were for the most part Christian. And it is true that they did not want the government to be able to interfere in freedom of religion, but it is also true that they did not want religion(s) to be able to interfere in the governing of the state.

  • kat

    The site I initially got that from was The Congressional Record. It is there in its entirety as it was first posted, minus your addition.

  • Ravo

    but it is also true that they did not want religion(s) to be able to interfere in the governing of the state.

    Agreed, Noel.

    That didn’t stop them tho, from basing our beginning, our country’s laws on Christian doctrine. The results of this foundation have been stellar, and remain set in stone, withstanding the assault of such as “new age” law, socialism, shari law, etc…all that would seek a foothold.

    Our forefather’s foundation fights a barrage today….In the old days of course, it was the English scenario Mr. Sowell pointed out they sought to avoid :

    “everyone had to pay taxes to support that church, whether they belonged to it or not, and that people who didn’t belong to the established church could not be admitted to various institutions or be appointed to certain official positions.” – Thomas Sowell

  • Bill Henry

    United States a Christian Nation??

    Not according to treaty of Tripoli of 1797. Article 11: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
    This is posted verbatim from the Wikepedia article on the treaty:
    The significance of this article that is often overlooked or ignored is that it stated categorically that the United States of America is not founded upon the Christian religion, and that this treaty, with that statement intact, was read before and passed unanimously by the United States Senate, and was signed by the President of the United States without a hint of controversy or discord, and remains the earliest and most definitive statement from the United States Senate and the President of the United States, on the secular nature of American government.

    Actually, I think many of the Founding Fathers were Deists.

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

  • Ravo

    Ah, yes …that one and only instance of the tiresome Tripoli argument.

    “opponents of the ‘Christian nation’ concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea.”

    (the last paragraph raises the mystery of Mr. Barlow, and his desperation to stop the attacks on ships which would not pay tribute, and the practice of holding captives for ransom.)

    “Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation’s heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.

    And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.

    “While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.’ does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point” (Emphasis added)

    In sum, the phrase was no doubt an invention of Mr. Barlow, who inserted it on his own for his own, unknown, purposes. It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate, which would no doubt be hesitant to object to any phraseology which was represented as desired by the Bey of Tripoli, with whom the United States wanted peaceful relations. It remains a mystery. ”


  • Bill Henry

    Ravo, consider the source, “catholice ducation”. Yes, the world has seen enough Catholic “education” over the centuries, I’m afraid. I think this article from 7 years ago says it all:
    VATICAN CITY (Reuters) September 1, 1999 – Pope John Paul said Wednesday the Catholic Church would start a new page of its history in 2000 by publicly seeking forgiveness for the errors, injustices and human rights offences it committed in the past. ……………………..The Pope has said in documents and speeches in the past that the Church needed to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, marked by the torture and killing of people branded as heretics.

    One of the first steps of John Paul’s papacy, which began in 1978, was to begin procedures leading to the rehabilitation in 1992 of Galileo, the Italian astronomer persecuted by the Church for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun.

    The Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633 because his teachings clashed with the Bible, which read: “God fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever.” Galileo was rehabilitated after 359 years.

    I rest my case.

  • kat

    And, of course, atheists have never believed anything that in later years they had to admit was false. But atheists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong.
    After all who could argue with science.
    What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state’s instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the family.
    The movement is still alive and well…among leftwing atheist nutjobs.
    I keep waiting for these science based intellectuals to apologize for their atrocities.
    Atheists probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century’s international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone–one communist country– well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it. Religion is not the world’s worst killer–atheism is, but that’s ok because they had science to back them.

  • Ravo

    Excellent Kat….

    BH is no doubt one of Islam’s, incognito.

    Thus, to admit to error is a “cannot compute”.

  • Ravo

    BH is no doubt one of Islam’s, incognito.

    Thus, to admit to error is a “cannot compute”.

    Just my personal opinion of course

  • That didn’t stop them tho, from basing our beginning, our country’s laws on Christian doctrine.

    Meaning what exactly?

    Ah, yes …that one and only instance of the tiresome Tripoli argument

    Is it “tiresome,” Ravo, because it disagrees with you and undermines your claims to America being primarily a Christian nation rather than a secular one?

    It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate

    You’re claiming the United States ratified a treaty without knowing what it was they were ratifying.

    I think it is very clear that America is a secular nation, the Founders of which did not want religion, any religion, to be able to meddle in how the country was run.

    I think it is also clear from what you have said that you believe it is in the best interests of America for the Christian religion to play a more active role in the governing of the country.

    Kat, Ravo, you’re sounding like radicals. Any power can become a tyranny, especially, regrettably, Christianity, and it wouldn’t be the first time (need I say Inquisition?) This is precisely why the Founders of America did not include a place for the church in the Government, except to say “Hands off!”

    P.S. BH, I didn’t know you were a communist islamo fascist. Somehow it doesn’t come across in your posts, you secular pinko pig you!

  • kat
    U.S. Evangelical Leaders Criticize Pat Robertson’s Remarks on Sharon
    Saturday, Jan. 7, 2006 Posted: 10:16:25AM EST
    Evangelical leaders on Friday asserted that televangelist Pat Robertson did not speak for them when he suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who had suffered a massive stroke, was stricken by God as a punishment for ceding land to Palestinians last summer.

    “I am both stunned and appalled that Pat Robertson would claim to know the mind of God concerning whether particular tragic events, such as former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in 1995 or Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke, were the judgments of God,” Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said in a statement. “Pat Robertson should know better.”
    Others, such as the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained that Robertson did not speak for all Evangelicals and that Sharon’s illness could be medically explained.
    “Ariel Sharon is 77 years old. He’s grossly overweight. He’s been under pressure his whole life. So I think any doctor could have predicted he was going to have health problems,” Haggard told the Los Angeles Times. “I doubt that God sovereignly is punishing him.”

  • Bill Henry

    Give me a break, kat! Communism may embrace atheism, but not the other way around! Communism is a philosophy, NOT a science. In the USSR, communism presented itself as a kind of secular religion with a utopia right here on earth. They even had a “trinity”; Marx, Engels and Stalin. Today, you can still view the preserved body of Lenin, much as a religious relic. The main thing that was wrong with communism, was that it’s promoters were intent upon forcing it upon the rest of the world thru whatever means they deemed necessary. Communism or any form of socialism is fine, IF, and I repeat IF and ONLY when ALL the members of that system FREELY want to live under it. “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” was their mantra. In a pure sense, there’s nothing wrong with that if you don’t aspire to have more than your neighbor and are willing to do whatever you can to contribute to the well being of all. I suppose the slogan of the 3 Musketeers said essentially the same thing: “All for one and one for all.”

    Let’s see, what did you friend Jesus say? Give up all your earthly possessions and follow me. He said it was easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into Heaven. Sounds to me that the main difference between communism and Christianity is you get into utopia now, instead of waiting until you die! Me? I’ll take good old fashioned atheistic capitalism under the US Constitution every time!

  • Ravo

    you believe it is in the best interests of America for the Christian religion to play a more active role in the governing of the country.

    You push to hear the words you want, and when they don’t come you make them up Noel. There you go…telling me what I believe

    I want to continue as is, and with our current success.

    My words CLEARLY indicated I believe in:

    the Status quo – the origin
    the SAME level of involvement – not to alter the basic structure.

    The “same means: not more – not less.

    Only you could f–k that one up.

  • kat

    Is the problem communism…or atheism itself?  In the French Revolution, the first flush of Jacobin anti-Christian sentiment was atheistic rather than Deistic.  Before the plundered and looted cathedrals of France became temples to a vaguely defined ‘Supreme Being’, they were proclaimed ‘Temples of Reason’: “Bearing a bust of Marat, the crowd marched to the Temple of Reason, the ertswhile cathedral, over whose portals were placed a large tricolor and a placard reading ‘Light after darkness’…An orchestra played, and the gathering (alleged to number ten thousand) sang a ‘Hymn to Nature’:
    “Mother of the Universe, eternal Nature,
    The People acknowledges your power eternal;
    On the pompous wreckage of ancient imposture
    Its hands raise your altar…”
    (Twelve Who Ruled, The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution, R.R. Palmer, p. 188)

    Is there an officially atheistic regime which did not slaughter its people nor subvert their right to religious liberty? Atheism won’t admit it, but atheism is a ‘religion’ hell bent on imposing state sponsored atheism on all.

  • Ravo

    Kat…atheism has been established as a religion by the Supreme Court on several occasions.

    The “First Amendment, traveling in a direction that favors secularism and the humanistic worldview over religion in general and Christianity specifically.

    It amazes me how the First Amendment, which protected the public’s free religious exercise from intrusions by the government, now is twisted so that the Establishment Clause is used to sanitize the public square from any mention of God.” — Robert Meyer

  • Ravo, you say you subscribe to maintaining the “status quo” and “our current success.”

    The Christian religion is playing a more active role in America, going so far as trying to turn the clock back by demanding evolution, a proven scientific process, be removed from the science curriculum and replaced by creationism and intelligent design, unproven religious theories with no basis in science. Atheists aren’t the only people alarmed by this desire of conservative Christians to force their unproven, religious views on everybody’s children in public classrooms.

    Again, as John Danforth, the moderate Christian and former Missouri Senator, put it:

    “Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.”

    Your “status quo” is actively trying to alter the “basic structure.”

  • Bill Henry

    Kat, If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. It’s just the ABSENCE of religion. The US Constitution is an atheistic document because it has nothing to do with any god/religion. Smile, god loves you. That’s religious in nature. Have a nice day! That’s atheistic. The Pledge of Allegiance WAS an atheistic document until 1954 when the anti-commie-crazed US gov’t insisted on inserting “under god”, thus making it the “Prayer of Allegiance”. The problem is with many of you religious promoters is you don’t understand the concept of neutrality in government. You simply insist on governmental endorsement of religion. Again, I’ll use 3 simple examples so you don’t need to strain yourself. Can you pick out the religious, neutral, and anti-religious ones? One Nation Under God……. Freedom Forever, Religion Never……..United We Stand. The first 2 violate the 1st Amendment; only the 3rd does not promote or inhibit religion. I think probably close to 100% of the atheists and other assorted non-religious types in this country would gladly see number 3 as out National Motto. Why can’t religionists accept neutrality? A little insecure in your beliefs maybe? Hell, your churches get away paying no taxes thus increasing the burden on the rest of us. Now, you also want governmental endorsement of your creeds!

  • In my blog post titled Annoying Americans I describe Pat Robertson this way:

    If there were a “Hall of Infamy” for false prophets, then Pat Robertson would have a wing of it all to himself.

    Robertson is oblivious to the damage that he has done to the Christian faith.

    Robertson’s delusion of grandeur was seen many years ago when he decided to become a presidential candidate.

    Having been rejected by Republican voters, Robertson has appointed himself God’s spokesman.

    While acting in his self-appointed role, Robertson proclaimed that an entire Pennsylvania city had evicted God from their community.

    I don’t object to Robertson playing the role of the village idiot, but I do object to Robertson making the entire USA his village.

  • Criminal in Chief

    Pat used to be a fun guy back when I was drinking.

  • Edwardssl

    Our Founding Fathers Christian?

    Not even close

  • Bill Henry

    Where is everybody today? In church? Is there anything new in the lives of the holy family? Any more wild guesses as to when JC is going to show up in my backyard?

  • Andy S.

    Pat Robertson is a clown now days. The only reason we hear about anything he does is because the MSM picks him as a spokesman for the religious. Why don’t we hear anything about Graham or his son?

    By the way, what has giving the land to the Palestinians got for the Israeli’s? Rockets, suicide bombers, and an Iranian extremist.

    The Israelis lose again.

  • Bill Henry

    Pat Robertson is the proverbial “squeaky wheel”, hence all the press. There are a LOT of people who can’t resist a charismatic soothsayer who knows how to push all the right buttons at the right time. Germany got heavily involved with such an individual in 1933.

  • kat

    That guy in Germany sounds like he could be your uncle. He sounds exactly like you when it comes to Christianity. If I believed in reincarnation, I’d swear he’d come back as Bill Henry.

  • Bill Henry

    Not exactly, kat, your WRONG again for the umpteenth time. Please check out this well documented site on Hitler’s Christianity. It spells it out very well with lots of photos to back up the text.

    This is how a charismatic leader such as Hitler operates; exploit the religious weakness of the people (most were good Catholics and Lutherans) by introducing your particular philosophy along side their religious beliefs. You interweave them until they all shout Heil Hitler in unison and away you go; time to conquer the world! Today, people wonder how it was possible for a civilized country such as Germany to follow Hitler into the catastrophe of WW2. The answer is simple. When you have people who believe in such absurdities as Noah’s ark, talking snakes, original sin, heaven, hell, etc, they will be more than happy to follow you to world domination.

  • kat

    You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that “National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable” and Hitler didn’t squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.
    I could probably find more speeches in which Hitler claims himself to be a Christian, but I think the point has been made. He said it. Now, what did it mean?

    It seems Hitler, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And when he didn’t, his lackeys did. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God’s name to gain support.

    Also, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn’t fight the Christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the Christian-based church.
    I have one more quote to share on this topic. This, again, from David Gehrig: “Let’s save the rhetorical comparisons to Hitler and Nazis for those who really deserve them–hate groups who proudly assume the Nazi mantle, and ‘Holocaust revisionists’ who would fantasize away Hitler’s genocidal crimes.”
    Also{Adolf Hitler once ordered his SS troops to level the Vatican with “blood and fire” and kidnap Pope Pius XII, a new book says.

    In “Pius XII, Pope of the Jews,” Italian historian Andrea Tornielli reveals that Hitler ordered the destruction of the Vatican and the deportation of Pius XII to Liechtenstein in 1943, in reprisal for the Pontiff´s reported assistance to Jews and for the Church´s opposition to the Nazi regime.

    In his work, which has just gone on sale in Italy, Tornielli explains that the “Führer” was livid after the signing of the armistice between the Badoglio government and the Allies on Sept. 8, 1943, and ordered the SS to destroy the Holy See with “blood and fire.”

    Hitler´s plan did not materialize, however, thanks to General Karl Wolff, then SS commander in Italy, who succeeded in dissuading the Nazi dictator from this course of action.

    Former Italian Minister Giulio Andreotti defended the validity of Tornielli´s thesis last week when he addressed the meeting of the Catholic movement Communion and Liberation. The meeting ended Saturday in this northern coastal city.

    Andreotti supported Pius XII and rejected the criticisms leveled against the Pontiff at the end of World War II, accusing him of passivity in face of the Holocaust.

    “The hostility against Pope Pacelli was not due to his weakness against Nazism, but to his rejection of Communism,” Andreotti said.

    Tornielli´s arguments had already been noted in recent years by historians and scholars, who quoted testimonies and documents from the time of the Nazi occupation of Rome.

    Among Pius XII´s defenders is Antonio Gaspari, author of “The Jews, Pius XII, and the Black Legend,” which offers testimonies of Jews in Rome who were saved from the Nazi-Fascist persecution thanks to the help of men and women of the Church, as requested by Pius XII himself.
    Pius XII´s actions helped save 800,000 Jewish lives, either directly or indirectly, according to Jewish researcher Pinchas Lapide.

    Far from affinity with Hitler, as claimed by Rolf Hochhuth in his play “The Vicar,” Pius XII was actively involved in the German resistance´s plans to remove the tyrant, as revealed in the British Foreign Office documents on the so-called Schwarze Kapelle, which involved Admiral Canaris, Count Von Stauffenberg and other German personalities opposed to the Führer.}
    Hitler is like many of today’s leftists–a lapsed catholic or something else lapsed. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don’t believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything.”
    Have a good day Bill Henry. I am going to celebrate with some orthodox friends today. You are not worth my time. You are a sad little man just like your hero who took his life in that cave. Do you hate Jews like you hate Christians? Here’s a Jew’s perspective:

  • Bill Henry

    You’re a real piece of work kat, with your personal attacks just like your fundy heros in the GOP and the church! The minute someone catches you on your distortions of history and lack of reasoned arguments, the name calling begins! I guess all the pictures of Nazi gang all buddy-buddy with the church leaders was too much for you. Can’t take the truth, can you? I’m not worth your time? Gee, why then did you spend SO MUCH of it responding to my last post? (hey Noel, is kat great, or what?)

    Wait, don’t forget! When you’re out today with your friends, ask them if they’ve ever tried any of these barley cakes, right from a “steamy” bible recipe, no less:

    Ezekiel 4:12: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.


  • Kat said:

    Hitler pretended to be a Christian, but, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth

    Bill said:

    This is how a charismatic leader such as Hitler operates; exploit the religious weakness of the people (most were good Catholics and Lutherans) by introducing your particular philosophy along side their religious beliefs.

    Oh my deity, has the world gone mad? Bill and Kat agree with each other!

  • Bill Henry

    Hey Noel, do they sell any of those Ezekiel barley cakes in your neck of the woods?

  • Well, when I was growing up, the frozen patties from the supermarket were all the rage and who knows what’s in those.

  • chico haas

    Noel: “I would not believe in germs unless I could look down a microscope and see them.”

    I’d be interested in your thoughts on the subatomic world. Quarks, bosons, u-mesons, etc. Do these particles exist? And how do you account for them, personally?

  • Chico, the particles you mention are the subject of Quantum Mechanics which is concerned with the minuscule. It is true that there is a gap between Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which deals with gravity or everything that affects what occurs in space.

    Currently, we believe there are four dimensions – the first being an infinitely small spot that has no height, no depth, no width. The second is just height and width but no depth. The third is the 3D space we know so well from living in. The fourth is time.

    Einstein’s Theory of Relativity says that these 4 elements comprise a malleable structure that gets altered when mass is placed within them, e.g. you walking down the street. Quantum theory, on the other hand, says that the purpose of these 4 elements that comprise our current understanding of space is to allow things to exist on it, not be altered by it. It suggests that space is constructed of tiny elements such as those you mention, the purpose of which is to accomodate mass without being affected by it. In other words, these two theories disagree on the basic structure of space.

    When dealing with the large, the Theory of Relativity makes sense, but when dealing with the small, it is Quantum Theory that makes sense. Both theories have fundamental differences in how they understand the universe.

    There’s a whole new world opening up in physics and it bridges the gap between both.

    Burkhard Heim, an obscure German physicist, put forward the idea (Heim’s Quantum Theory) that there are 8 dimensions, 4 more than we previously knew about, before he discarded 2 of them. Walter Droscher, another German scientist, has since come along and offered a mathematical theory to support Heim’s original claim of 8 dimensions. It’s known as Heim-Dröscher Space and it is a mathematical description of an eight-dimensional universe which couples the forces of gravity and electromagnetism.

    The math is confusing everyone, but if the theory is right (and they have come up with a way of testing it to prove it), it means that hyperspace travel, i.e., travelling to Mars and back in under 5 hours or visiting a star 11 light years away in around 80 days, would be possible.

    To answer your questions, I think the particles you mention that exist in Quantum theory probably do exist. Notice that I say probably. In China, scientists have recently completed an experiment which accurately predicted the mass of subatomic particles and also showed that they could not only exist in clusters of 3, but in clusters of 6 as well. So my ‘probably’ comes with evidence.

    What I have always found interesting about science is what we do not know, but are constantly working on understanding. Much of our science is incomplete, but I’ll take incomplete knowledge over ancient, man-made stories invented to explain away natural forces, stories that have no basis in fact. We still do not understand everything. Science, as I have said, is incomplete and is not ashamed to admit it, but it is far more interesting than clinging to what some fellow supposedly thought about the universe 2,000 years ago (remember, Jesus didn’t write any books himself. It’s worth keeping in mind that what we have from him is hearsay written decades after his death and subsequently translated into several different versions of his ‘truth’).

    When you look up into the sky, you cannot see a black hole through any telescope. It is only by observing the effects of the enormous gravitational force exerted by the black hole on the surrounding stars that we can figure out where it is. We can also figure out where a black hole is by photographing levels of radiation our eyes cannot see. It is the same with Quantum Mechanics. It is the behavior of atomic particles that allows us to understand the properties and behavior of subatomic particles.

    When you look at your arm, you cannot see the tiny cells that make up your skin anymore than you can see the miniature dustmites crawling on the tiny hairs of your arm. This does not mean that they are not there. People will say “Aha, just because you can’t see God doesn’t mean God isn’t there.” What makes all the difference is being able to test our theories through the use of our reasoning minds, whether it’s through using the microscope or the telescope or the very advanced equipment used in China to predict the mass of subatomic particles.

    God is just an idea. It’s not even a theory since a theory requires evidence to support it. The idea of God does not come with evidence. Science may not currently be able to show me a pretty picture of a subatomic particle, but if I can be shown the math and the observations that support the theory for their existence, I’ll take that over 2000-year-old fables about a superbeing no one has ever been able to prove the existence of.

  • Pingback: Kat Von D()

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Obama’s problem()

  • I liked as much as you’ll obtain carried out right here. The caricature is attractive, your authored material stylish. however, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell indubitably come further previously once more since exactly the similar just about very incessantly inside of case you shield this increase.