If only they were Islamic

Pat Robertson - "It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into institutions are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218. (This pretty much sums up Pat's political philosophy. Unfortunately for him, what he espouses here is blatantly unconstitutional, as Article VI, Section 3 states: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.")

Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"

"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?" (Oliver North)

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together." (Mr. Death Squad seems to forget that Hitler killed over 100,000 homosexuals just because they were homosexual)

RJ Rushdoony - He has advocated that Christian fundamentalists
take "dominion" over the U.S.; abolish democracy, which he calls a "heresy;" and establish a theocratic state. According to Christianity Today magazine, Rushdoony also believes that under such a state, "True to the letter of Old Testament law, homosexuals... adulterers, blasphemers, astro-logers, and other will be executed."

Randall Terry - "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." -- The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/quotes.html

I knew these people were scary, but that's a particularly ghoulish collection of quotes. They're always talking about Islamic extremists but they're the mirror image.

Didn't they claim the same thing back during the Reagan admin (IIRC)?:shrug:

-- Harmonic Convergence & chill the hell out.

What a back-alley bunch of souless reptiles.

How strange that Robertson picks on the most acomplished insect builder as his example of an animal that doesn't build. Is he really that ignorant?

We are not safe from any particular version of it.

(I am definitely NOT talking about most of the faithful of the world)

What a great country Christians have built.

The truth is that Christians have a long history against progress of any kind. If would be more accurate to say that Americans built a great country, in spite of the Christians.

Unfortunately in the last several decades, in an effort to be religiously tolerant, we have let these people get out of control. The time has come to change that.

It's not a matter of religious tolerance allowing them to "get out of control". Look into the Dominionist and Christian Reconstructionist groups--they want to remake the USA into a Calvinist version of Old Testament society.

R J Rushdoony was one of the followers; here, his son discusses the movement:

Forty years ago my father, R.J. Rushdoony, started the Chalcedon Foundation out of a house we rented in Woodland Hills, in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. A few sympathetic individuals had informally pledged him support for our move there from northern California. The Chalcedon Report began as a newsletter to this core group. It was the summer after Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, lost the presidency by a landslide. It was weeks after the Watts rioting. Conservatives, particularly Christian ones, saw little cause for optimism.

Unlike any nonprofit foundation of its time, Chalcedon was committed to educating Christians to see the social order in a new way, as an outgrowth of the application of religious faith. My father's goal was to teach Christians to change their culture by first applying the faith personally and then extending it outwardly to family, church, calling, and community. The Kingdom of God is built piece by piece, person by person, as individuals, relationships, institutions, and spheres conform themselves in obedience to the Word of God....

www.chalcedon.edu/articles/markrushdoony/0502_2mrushdoony.php

Tim LaHaye--co-author of the "Left Behind" books is another power; his wife, Beverly, has a website to check for the latest topics being pushed on the credulous media. Gosh, the current message is "Let Terry Live!":

www.cwfa.org/main.asp

Tim & Beverly LaHaye are alumni of Bob Jones University. Bush's speech there during his 2000 campaign was a turning point. He's been playing along with them since he was "saved" in Texas--just after "Christian" (note the quotation marks) fanatics took over the Texas Republican Party.

Fundamentalists want to follow their faith as they understand it; Evangelicals want to spread the word about their faith. Traditionally, both of these overlapping groups also supported separation of Church & State, perhaps because they remember being oppressed by governments tied in with an Established Church or the evil Whore of Babylon herself. I remember when the Southern Baptists avoided politics!

These new guys have been successful in gaining power & plan to gain even more.

I have been trying to tell people for over 20 years how dangerous these people are. As a former Republican I saw these people begin to infest the GOP from the early 80's on but when I have tried to point the facts out to people I am labeled as being an atheist, a Christian bigot and so on.

And you are correct, these people's objective goal is to transform America into a theocracy and they have been very clear about that for many years. I must say, that one of the reason I starting hanging out on DU was to get a better feel for how Democrats view religion in politics and I find it very disturbing how many people I find here who act as apologist for the Christians when their radicalism is pointed out.

The fact is the Christian religion, and yes I know people here try to separate the "good Christians" from the "bad Christians," but the fact is the whole belief system is based on superstition and mythology and therefore has no place in politics driving public policy which needs to be driven by reason and logic. If America does not wake up soon and start to understand these people are a threat to our lives, our security, our rights, and our way of life, I am fearful that we are rapidly approaching a time that will get real ugly.
Decent people need to start taking some serious steps and begin dealing with the Christian problem in this country before they completely destroy it.

Bigots come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them misuse religion--not just the Christian religion--to put forth their dangerous agenda.

Christianity and Christians are not the problem. Religion and religious people are not even the problem. Bigots are the problem because they not only seek to destroy those who oppose them, they also spoil the groups within which they choose to operate.

To put it another way, a person could argue that "politics" should be abolished because of the Nazis, right-wing Republicans and other goofballs who ruin the world with politics. But clearly, it's not the practice of politics that is the problem, it's the misuse by narrow-minded groups about which we must be concerned.

I am not, I have mountains of evidence collected over many many years to back up my position.

If you want to be an apologist for fanaticism, that's your business, but when you bring it out to the streets, I will oppose you.

I'm trying to draw a distinction.

There are those people who are fanatics, who misuse faith and religion. Pat Robertson, for example, has what I would call "halitosis of the soul."

Then there are those who are simply people of faith who also are very reasonable. I would like to think that I fall in this category. . . a supporter of the separation of church and state, a proponent of GLBT rights, a conscientious consumer who seeks to buy what is good for the earth and supportive of fair wages, etc., etc.

I don't doubt that you have much material to prove ways in which Christianity has been abused and misused. But I am a Christian and I don't take a cotton to the idea that my faith--or that I am--the problem facing this country.

I'll judge the results. When believers try to make their doctrine into the law of the land, I'll object.

Separated from The State, my "judgement" is more a matter of taste. I respect those who do good because of their beliefs more than those who loudly preach against their enemies. Extra points awarded for good art--whether it's that old-timey Gothic thing or a finely sung hymn.

Personally, I'll tend toward reason and logic. However, "reason" can lead people to do rather cruel things.

" . . . they want to remake the USA into **their interpretation of** a Calvinist version of Old Testament society. "

As you can tell from my screen name, I am a Calvinist--but a Calvinist in the true sense of the word. That is to say, I follow much of John Calvin's teachings, not those of "interpretors" who came after him.

The Rev. Ian Paisley is an ally of these guys--he's received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University. But he had to found "The Free Presbyterian Church" to get a pulpit for preaching his hate. The (regular?) Presbyterians were much too moderate.

A friend wanted to attend Macalester College in Minnesota--a fine liberal school. But her father was a conservative minister in another church & would not allow her to consort with the "liberal" Presbyterians.

I'm one of those moderate/liberal Presbyterians (i.e. Presbyterian Church, USA) and I'm well aware of the errant brands of the faith. Groups like Orthodox Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, and the like usually base their thinking on selected passages of scripture and choice portions of Calvin's Institutes. If they looked at the fuller witness of Scripture and the entirety of Calvin's theology (who had some very imperfect points of view, of course, but who had a lot of good ideas overall), they would not be able to hold their narrowminded views so tightly.

A friend of mine tried to "prove" a point to me once by quoting a passage of the Bible. My response was that any one section or verse needs to be evaluated against the fullness of the Bible. When doing so, a very different perspective can be drawn. Unfortunately, it's a tremendously more difficult and time-consuming practice, so that's why so many people prefer the easier but more problematic approach of just picking and choosing those pieces they "prefer."

One of my favorites is, "if he remains without hair, then he must be bald." But now I'm just rambling . . .

There are many, many progressive Christians--and there always has been. But human tendency is to be exclusive, and "leaders" who appeal to that aspect tend to seem more "credible" among the masses. Therefore, they get more air time, have more short-term emphasis politically, etc.

The truth is, however, exclusivity eventually falls in on itself and the progressives--who prove to be more consistent over time--prevail. Then, the ones who opposed progressives sneak in the back door, as it were, to declare that they were supportive all along. It happens again and again throughout history: the abolition of slavery, voting rights, etc.

If you really think about it, Jesus was an exceptionally radical religious person--telling officials that they were hypocrites, asking his followers to forgive those who wrong them, and so forth. Those "progressive" followers fought against an oppressive, Roman regime for 300 before Constantine legitimized the faith. It was only with the marriage of empire and religion that things went south. But religious progressives still made their voices known at the risk of their own lives. And although they may not sound progressive to our ears today, Christian groups like the Puritans and Reformers were quite progressive for their time.

So, I think it would be more accurate to say that humanity has a long history of reluctance for progress and religion has often been **misused** as a tool of opposing such.

Yeah, but that was 1700 years ago, and since then Christianity has been nothing more than a repressive, murderous, and destructive ideology.

Do people forget that the reason people started migrating to America was to escape religious oppression?

and they were Christians.

To say that Christianity is responsible for repressive, murderous, destructive ideology is a complete misperception. I am a very devout Christian and I oppose all forms of repression, murder and destructiveness--based on my Christian principles.

The abolition of slavery, the securing of voting rights for all citizens, the fight for equality among all people, the liberation of people from overlords in places like El Salvador . . . these are just a few of the many more recent causes embraced by, supported by and even instigated by Christians. Again, don't make blanket claims. As I stated earlier, it is not Christianity or Christians who are the problem--it is the **misuse** of the faith by narrow-minded people that is the problem. They would do the same things and make the same twisted leaps of logic whether they were Christian, Jew, Hindu or atheist.

A fact, which as always intrigued me. Why would a group of people embark on what clearly was a hazardous journey to a complete wilderness, to reconstruct a system they were trying to escape in the first place. Basic reasoning would cause one to think that they would take a look at things and say, "You know, we really need to come up with a different game plan here".

I have always seen that as evidence as to just how psychologically debilitating Christian thought is. While there exists literally hundreds of years of evidence to demonstrate that the Christian religion has been at the heart of innumerable amounts of atrocities and has visited incalculable amounts of pain and suffering on humanity, Christians never fail in telling themselves that, "But this time it is going to be different." I know of many people in the field of psychology who refer to those types of mental processes as insanity. Could you possibly explain the rational there?

"The abolition of slavery"

Ah yes, slavery, that "peculiar institution", and you are correct the abolition movement started in the churches, primarily by the Quakers, who have always been pacifists, and even the Catholics got in on the abolition theme early on. But that still completely ignores that the main philosophical foundations in America for the justifications of slavery in the first place arouse from the Christian religion, based on evidence in the bible, and went on for a good 250 years before other Christians starting opposing it.

And if you have studied much history you would certainly be aware that the Civil War, although promoted on the moral grounds of the injustice of slavery, in real world terms had more too do with economics than with the slavery issue. However, that has always been true about government; they never actually go to war on moral grounds, that is just the marketing tool they use to rally the people, but for more concrete reasons usually involving economics and\or property.

"As I stated earlier, it is not Christianity or Christians who are the problem--it is the **misuse** of the faith by narrow-minded people that is the problem."

Why sure Christianity is not the problem, everyone knows that the Christian religion only wants want is good for people, it's all a part of God's master plan.

The problem with that argument is that it completely ignores the fact of hundreds of years of history, as I stated earlier, of repression, murder, and torture employed by Christians of which the bible is the centerpiece of where the justification for such methods arise from.

On some other web sites I visit they have a chant they use to present that argument. It goes like this, “Hitler, Stalin, Mao, PolPot”. Now what I find interesting when Christians employ this argument is they are in fact conceding to the point that the Christian have a long murderous history, i.e they don't dispute it, primarily because they can't as history is very clear on the subject, but in essence are saying, "Well true, we may be bad, but look at these people, they were worse", which allows them to deflect the argument from the core subject. Psychologist have a name for that methodology, but I can't right at this moment remember it, but basically it is a mechanism that is used to take the spotlight of truth off of the individual in question and place it on someone else. People do that so they don't have to take a real hard look at themselves, which is something that Christians are generally loath to do.

"They would do the same things and make the same twisted leaps of logic whether they were Christian, Jew, Hindu or atheist."

Again, we are talking about Christians, not Jews, Hindu's or atheist's.

Let me ask you a question, have you ever actually read the bible all the way through, you know cover to cover? I ask this because most polls indicate that around 90% of most self-professing Christians have never actually read the entire bible and therefore really don't know what they are advocating. They seem to just regurgitate what they are told and think that if they feed a couple of homeless people, then they have achieved some level of moral superiority.

I also ask because it has been my experience that people who have completely read the bible all of the way through, are usually horrified by what they find within its pages. Primarily because what it generally depicts is a homicidal psychopathic God that has a real sadistic streak in him from time to time. Oh sure it talks about the mercy of God from time to time, but that is not the overriding theme of the book and clearly that mercy is completely contingent on absolute submission to authority, which can be readily removed for some pretty minor infractions. That just never has impressed me as the kind of a God I would really want much to do with.

I was just somewhat curious about that.

Every example you bring up to combat the Christian faith is, as I stated earlier, an example of the abuse or misuse of the faith and/or the Bible. Plain and simple.

I would be a fool to deny that terrible things have happened in the name of my religion. And I think it equally foolish to say that Hitler, Stalin and others were somehow "worse" than Christian-identified atrocities. But, again and again I will declare that the things done in Christ's name that are actual atrocities are not legitimately done with a clear perspective on what the faith is really about.

When a person reads the entirety of the Bible and evaluates its parts against its whole, when they study the language, the context, the history they can find something very clear: it is a book of faith and nothing more. It was written over centuries by people who sought to understand life, the divine, and the relationships between one another and God. As a result, these humans frequently got it wrong. And sometimes, they got it right. The presence of the bad and the good, the wrong and the right within the Bible shows that humans are always on a quest to understand and to do what is right--despite the fact that they often mess up. And when you look at it from this perspective, you discover that there is much within the Bible that is redeeming, encouraging, hopeful and centered on grace for the ability to keep trying. I have a problem with people who treat the Bible like it's some official court record of God's directions, as well as those who criticize it as if all Christians take that perspective.

Having studied history, I agree that there was much to the Civil War that had to do with politics and economics as anything else. But folks on both sides of the issue--the good, bad, right, wrong, conservative, progressive, however you want to designate them--frequently used theological and religious reasoning. Once more, it only shows that they were all guilty of the fact that, sometimes we see correctly and sometimes we don't. Unfortunately, the times we see with faulty eyes, as it were, can lead to murder, repression, and so forth. But I could also show just as many examples where Christians used their faith and the Bible to oppose these injustices.

In this set of posts, we are indeed addressing Christianity. But my point about Jews, Hindus, atheists and others is that you are criticizing an entire faith system unfairly. You are stating that somehow all Christians are bad people, following a book and faith of tremendously rotten proportions. It is the same misguided thinking that leads to such offensive claims like, "all Muslims are terrorists."

I think it also important to point out that if I feed a couple of homeless people that I can not claim a moral superiority. Again, you describe a skewed understanding that some people might have. I don't. I look at myself as a human being of great worth--just like all human beings. I also recognize that I have many failings and that, when all is said and done, even I may have used my faith in wrong ways. As a Christian, I have no right to claim myself as better than anyone else. The only distinction is that I seek to live with the belief that God is gracious to me despite my failings, and that I should seek to do the same to others.

Now regarding that part about starting over again:

"A fact, which as always intrigued me. Why would a group of people embark on what clearly was a hazardous journey to a complete wilderness, to reconstruct a system they were trying to escape in the first place. Basic reasoning would cause one to think that they would take a look at things and say, 'You know, we really need to come up with a different game plan here'".

Any person who decides to take on a new venture, even on a quest to escape what was left behind, will still attempt to construct a life similar to what was known before. Sure, there may be specific differences, but all in all, the human tendency is to seek out what is familiar. It is not a Christian ideology per se, it is a fact of human nature. For example, when I lived in Chicago, I lived in an area heavily populated by Korean immigrants. They all came to the U.S. to seek a new life and a new opportunity--in a complete wilderness, if you will--but they still clustered together in the same area of town, spoke Korean among one another, ate Korean food, structured their families in traditional Korean styles, and so forth. Many of these people were not Christian, but they exhibited exactly what you describe they, in basic reasoning, ought to have abandoned. Yet, there was something comforting about the familiar in a strange land--and that was the main reason they did this.

When all is said and done, I doubt I will ever convince you that Christianity is actually a good religion and that many of us Christians are genuinely decent folks. As well, you are not likely to change my mind that my faith is foolish or evil. I simply ask that you consider my basic point: human nature has a dark side that misuses religion or anything else it can manipulate for selfish purposes; thus, the problems we have may show more about who we are and what we do collectively rather than through one group or system within humanity.

I wish I could debate with you all day, but I need to go to work.

Peace.

Well let's pick it up later. I enjoyed your responce.

anyone who claims to have NEVER entertained a homosexual fantasy or thought will be exiled.

I'm safe. I'm perfectly willing to admit to having such fantasies.

Perfect!

n/t

This is the same man that said that Hurricane Andrew hit Florida because of the gays living in that state.

Now, let's talk about Robertson's financial interests in Africa...