Perhaps he really meant "take him out" to a concillatory lunch at Denny's?

-- S

Hmm, maybe.  I mean, it would be the mother of all insults.  Imagine a bunch of multi-millionaires taking a fellow multi-millionaire  president of a country to Denny's.  It's brilliant.  It would be the ultimate outrage.  Or maybe he would really like the Grand Slam breakfast.

NO! NO! NO! You've got it all wrong. Pat Robertson is a latent homosexual so when he said we should "take him out" it was his subconscious stating his hidden desire to have a handsome Hispanic man take him out, wine and dine him and then take him home and pound his ass and make him feel like a real woman.
Pat just wants to be loved thats all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  How did I not see it?  The smirking.  The squinting.  The winking.  The hypocrital actions and comments and obvious fact that he doesn't really respect God.  How did I not see it earlier?

Don't feel bad. The only reason I was able to see it is because I myself am a latent homosexual with repressed desires of being pounded in the ass by a hot Latin guy myself. 

Ah, good, that makes me feel better.  You see, I only want to be pounded by Asian men, so of course I wouldn't have caught it.  

Well when Anal Pat starts  calling for Navy Seals to "take out Kim Jong" than I'm sure you'll be the first to catch on to his true meaning. 

Heh heh heh ... you implied "sea-men." Heh heh heh ...

-- S

word 

all karma bein' equal....i wouldn't be surprised if mr. holier than thou ends up with a pair of custom fitted cement shoes.

*Does a happy dance, the Mullows took this on* Kudos.

Haha, why thank you , my dear Greenie.  Your kudos are much appreciated.

Favor for you my dear, when I write today's blog, will you reply with your professional opinion?

I'd greatly appreciate it.

Most certainly.

Pat Robertson in this case is FLAT OUT WRONG.  And I'm a conservative Christian... not republican mind you.  But I mean... for a man of the cloth to call for such a thing is flat out ISLAMIC!  If he was a leader of the state it would be a different sort of matter... but he's not a leader of the state.  And if he was, what an IDIOT he'd be to go gallavanting his desire for assassination of this loser dictator. 

I don't like the 700 club to begin with... they're always asking for dough.  And I don't mean to make communion bread.

Woah... I'm sorry. Did you just write "for a man of the cloth to call for such a thing is flat out ISLAMIC!"? Are you inferring that the Islamic religion promotes murder?  Do you know anything about Islam? Muslims believe in "Thou shall not kill" just as Christians do. Every religion has it's extremists (Even Christianity does... Don't you know anything about the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland?). That was a very racist comment and you should be ashamed at your ignorance about other religions and your arrogance about your own.

It's not race but religion.  And yes, I do know PLENTY about Islam.  But if you listen to Islamic clerics they call for assassinations all of the time.  It's not necessarily a Qu'ranic or Hadithan verse I'm citing here.  Just comparing Robinson's actions as a religious leader of the Christian faith, to that of some religious leaders of the Islamic faith.

 The conflict in Ireland between Protestants and Roman Catholics is flat out unChristian.  It's not a matter of extremism.  It's either orthodox or unorthodox.  Correct practice or incorrect practice.  That sort of violence is strictly prohibited by the Christian faith.

I'm not ignorant of other religions ma'am.  I'm very well aware.  But yes, I am indeed arrogant about my own.  I refuse to believe in a religion that isn't arrogant enough to believe it is the only right.  I will apologize for the blanket statement of Muslims promoting assassination.  I do realize that not all do. 

Yes, I know it's a religion. Maybe a more appropriate phrase I should have used is "prejudiced comment." (Although "race" can be defined not only as "groups defined by skin color." The dictionary states it can be defined as "Humans considered as a group." )

There are plenty of Muslims who would state that they do not consider the Islamic clerics you talk about true Muslims and do not want these people to be associated with their religion.



You now state that you were comparing Robinson's actions to that of SOME Islamic leaders and that you realize that not all feel the way these leaders do, but before that is not what you stated. You claimed that the actions of Robinson are "Islamic" not are "like some unorthodox Islamic clerics." If I was a Muslim, I would be so hurt by that statement. Your comparison was as prejudiced as me saying to a white person who just robbed a convience store, "You robbed a convience store?? That's flat out BLACK!" Just because there is a small percentage of a group (and yes, I understand it's a very loud percentage, but it's still small) that calls for murder, does not mean that portion represents the whole. You should try to remember that before you make a statement as you did (and in CAPS mind you to make your point even further) in a public forum.

I am prejudice against Islam. I make absolutely no qualms about it. I actually
think that those clerics are generally orthodox muslims... rather than the watered
down version of Islam you run into in America and on the American media.
So because I see that kind of statement to be orthodox Islam, my statement
isn't completely false. And I don't think that it is just a loud minority group.
If I did, I wouldn't have made the statement.

Do you realize how many religions are arrogant enough to believe that their the only true religion?  There are countless subsets of Christianity alone that believe taht tehy are the only "correct" Christians.  Truth is a very relative thing.  For any one religion to claim that they are more correct than another is absurd.  Many religions infact share stories that are thematically the same, yet involve different characters.  For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh vs the story of Noahs arc.  Both are about a great flood, a big boat, taking animals on the boat, etc. Just different names. Same story.  To claim one of these "myths" is anymore correct than the other is absurd.  Additionally, it seems very un christ-like to embrace arrogance.

This is one of the biggest problems that plague most religions.  Instead of embracing differences and learning from others, people want to shut out the other religions because everyone elses is incorrect.  If people would just open up, perhaps we could all learn from each other.  Perhaps if God does exist, we can learn more about God by studying many religions, instead of blindly believing one is more correct than another.

And I agree with DutchessofWales.  You made a prejudice comment.  Not all Muslims are like the people who would fly planes into a building, strap bombs on themselves and go into a subway, etc.  Not surprisingly, when Christians led the holy inquisitions, it was certainly christian back then for anyone not believing in the "one true faith" to be executed or imprisoned.  I love how Christians will so willingly bash all of Islam, for the actions of a small subset of Islam, when their religion is also guilty of terrible actions and behavoir.

Thank you!! EVERY religion has had groups who claim they are killing in the name of their God and that God has given them the right to kill in his name. What do you think the Holy Crusades were??? 

Yup!!  

The Crusades were a military response to the encroching threat of Islamic
armies from the Middle East. If we hadn't had Crusades (yes where some
attrocities happened) you and I presumably wouldn't be alive today, or we'd
be Muslims.

Again, I addressed issues like the in Ireland between protestants and
Roman Catholics. I know that not all Muslims fly planes into buildings. Never
said that. I compared the words of a Christian leader to that of an Islamic leader.
It seems that it is MUCH more typical of an Islamic leader to say that.
Say whatever you want to about truth being relative. That sort of postmodern
idea doesn't make any semblance of sense whatsoever. The very statement contradicts
itself.
The difference between the hailing from Islam, and the commited
by the Church is this. In Christianity, the authority (Scripture [and for Roman
Catholics tradition]) say that such acts are sinful and unChristian. In Islam,
such practice is orthodox and a part of the true practice of the faith. Yes, some
will dissagree with me. I don't care one way or the other. I've done research
enough to know the truth of the matter.

Truth is only absolute within a strict, axiomatic setting, where one can easily verify the validity of a statement as a consequence of the axioms.  And, as Godels theorem tells us, even then, things are uncertain.  Since religion, and politics, opinions, etc, rest on someones ideology, personal beliefs, than that doesn't make for absoluteness. 

As such, Scripture, the Koran, the Torah, etc, can be twisted and skewed by individuals to suit their agenda.  I'm sure Scripture was used to justify the Crusades.  So does that mean since (in your opinion) truth is absolute, that each of those individuals is correct? no. it does not.

Postmodernism at it's best I see. The fact of the matter is however,
that whether or not a truth can be proven does not change the verity or
falsity of a statement. For Example: It is either true or false that there is a Jesus
of Nazareth, and it is either true or false that He is the Son of God, God
incarnate. Now, this is a belief held by all 'Creedal' Christians. But,
it is a statement or claim that can't be impirically proven. But nevertheless
it is a statement or claim that is either true or false. The truth of it
isn't relative at all.

And on the note of Crusades, they are seen as a Religious movement. Keep
in mind that they were military response that was directed at the invading
forces of Mohammadans or Muslims or Infidels (whatever historical term you
choose.) You cannot go in with the mindset that the Church had no business
dealing with war. In those days, the Church was even more of a political
entity than it ever was. There was no concept of seperation of Church
and state. It would have been a warranted reaction from any sovereign
nation. But because it was organized and called for by the Church it gets
a bad wrap. Yes, no doubt that many things happened that weren't Christ-like.
But it's not meant to be a religious movement like Jihad. (Although some
Crusaders and clergy I'm sure viewed it in a similar way.)

I would say perhaps mathematics and science at its best.  Quantum mechanics, General Relativity, mathematics, etc shows us that this world and universe is filled with so much uncertainty.  While the pure mathematical world can produce statements, consequences, results, that are either true or false, even then, we see that there is some ambiguity and uncertainty built in.  If the "perfect" mathematical realm isn't so absolute, what makes you think the thoughts on our little planet are?  Especially thoughts about religion?  Sure, if you believe in one faith, over another, you can correctly argue within the beliefs of that one faith, but who is to say that that faith is correct?  Are any correct?  Is one more correct (fuzzy logic deals with this. varying degrees of truth).  This of course, is relative to the observer.

Appropriately, just because you can come up with a few statements that are either true or false doesn't mean that ALL statements are true or false.  Here's a nice Godelian example:  "This statement is false".  If you were to ask a universal truth machine (UTM) whether this statement is true or false, it would not be able to give you an answer.  Additionally, the truth of an existential question such as was there a man named jesus christ, is either true or false.  Theres not much to say about statemets such as that.  However, depending on who you ask(especially 500 plus years ago), you may get different responses.  If the question could be asked to a UTM, i.e in a perfect vacuum we can get a nice cut and dry verification.  But this world is not so cut and dry. 

Here's a mathematical example:  Is 2+2 = 4?  According to you, its either true or false.  But the answer is, it depends.
Sure, in any subset of the complex plane, such as the real numbers, integers, rationals, 2+2 is certainly 4.  But, in a different set, the integers modulo 3 (Zmod3), 2+2 is congruent to 1, not 4.  So 2+2 is certainly not equal to 4 in Zmod3, and infact, 4 does not even exist in Zmod3.

A non mathematical example:
So if you ask someone of the Jewish faith:
Is Jesus the son of god?
I believe the answer is no.
If you asked a Christian(whatever a Christian might be these days. too many different trains of thought these days) that question, I think the answer would be yes.

However, how is this absoluteness? One person says yes, the other says no.  Perhaps a UTM knows the correct answer.  Is there a correct answer?  Sure there is.  The correct answer for such a question depends on you.  We even see how a "clear cut" mathematical statements can have different outcomes depending how where your asking the question from.  Additionally, if we cannot logically deduce he is or isn't the son of god, without being in the setting of a religious belief, than that doesn't sound very absolute.  Sounds like the answer would depend on what you believe.

I responded to this, and while i find the conversation interesting, I don't wish to continue this debate further; its off topic from the blog.

It's amusing to watch people defend their isolationist mentalities behind the gossamer veil of "religion".

L.

Religion makes plenty more sense to me than postmodern relativism.
Sorry. Bytheway, in reference to the original post. I was against
Robinson and his statement.

"Till priests laps are slapped with parental advisory warnings/

I'll be auditioning gods in my office on Monday morning/"

"Just a lit fuse in the back of the pews/

acting amused/

watching a thousand different flavors of the same God feud/"

--Aesop Rock  "Holy Smokes"