BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 08:09 AM

The article linked says he prayed for the Justices to retire, not to be smitten.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:41 PM

Thank you oh lady with class. Salamanders, newts, toads, frogs, and all other amphibians deserve our love, warts and all! It is the Christian thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: LadyJean
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 11:32 PM

Jackson and Sharpton can be toads too. We have a toad shortage, and they're very useful amphibians. Ribbit.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 02:02 PM

Hmmm ! Why does this remind me of the Rev. Nemiah Scudder - I fear if this goes on we may well have a need to revolt in 2100.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 01:57 PM

IN 19-hundred and seventy-nine
Pat Robertson needed a brand new line,
"I'll make me gold by acting divine!!",
And Pat prayed on the air-waves!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From:
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM

"Herr Pat Prays On The Airwaves" (Sung to the tune When Pat Works On The Railway)


In the year of two thousand three
'Twas then Herr Pat said "now I see"
"God's gonna torch the three supremes
While Pat prays on the air waves."
Filame yore yore-a
Fil-a-me yo-re yo-re-a
While Pat prays on the air waves."

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 06:10 PM

There are always newts. And salamanders. But I think we should keep him and not sully other species with our problems. Bad public relations....

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 04:22 PM

I picture Jackson as an aging mule with a huge fortune in gold strapped to his back, gradually leaking out, blowing away in the wind. Make a good movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 03:42 PM

Although he's not my candidate of choice, I do kinda like the Reverend Al Sharpton. I wouldn't want him hanging onto my leg, but I'd say he has the tenacity of a pit-bull.

Bush! There! Go get 'im, Reverend!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 01:41 PM

The "horned toad" is actually a lizard, as most of you know. Any suggestions for a new mortal form for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? C'mmon, guys, don't waste that great imagination!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 01:09 PM

That may be the problem.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: JennyO
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 12:59 PM

All right - as long as he's not a HORNY toad.......

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM

horned toad comes to mind:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: JennyO
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 12:56 PM

This is true, Kat, and he needs to be somewhere where he will not do any harm himself. So he can't be a cane toad, because they do a lot of harm in Queensland. Any suggestions?

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 12:43 PM

Well, if we ask that he become a toad or something better, for the highest good of all concerned it wouldn't be such a moral dilemma.**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 11:58 AM

But being a toad would be a great improvement for him, so it wouldn't he causing harm, it'd be doing him a favour, as well as other people. It would count as a sort of exorcism.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: JennyO
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 11:35 AM

Sorry LadyJean, it's against us Wiccan catters' beliefs to cause harm to anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 02:08 AM

Hmm! I thought he was a toad. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 01:41 AM

LJ:

I must demur on the origins of the Y2K crisis. Geeks were discussing the issues long before Pat Robertson ever heard of it or mentioned it and there were plenty of them who thought it could be catastrophic. It is impossible to tell how bad it might have been if the huge amount of remediation work that was done had not been. Pat Robertson just decided that it might have enough cataclysmic potential to be suitable to his mythology. I guess there are a limited number of things that are bad enough that you can attribute them to GOd or some such notion.

I don't doubt he reckoned prayer averted the catastrophe, rather than hundreds of millions of dollars worth of programmer hours. More fool he.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: LadyJean
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 11:25 PM

My sister is a lesbian. She has many qualities in common with a tension headache, but she's all the family I have. My main worry, now that her rottweiller is dead, is that someone who thinks he's a Bible believing Christian decide shooting her is just what God wants him to do.
Pat Robertson single handedly created the Y2K crisis. He started the story, and pushed it until the mainstream media picked up on it. It was never going to happen. Pat just likes disasters.
Could some of our Wiccan catters turn him into a toad. He'd be much more useful going ribbit and eating flies.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 08:11 PM

Ebbie:

You are more perceptive than most. I make enigmatic statements to make people think. Don't Donuel and guest of 6:59 scare you more than I?

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 07:38 PM

The right wing used assisination to effect their agenda effectively in the 60's. Many arch conservatives think liberals are insane and to play "fair" so when they hear Pat pleading to them to rid me of "this man" you can but some will try with their trusty Bushmaster.223

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 07:29 PM

Kevin, you may already know this, but in case not--if, during Bush's Administration, any of the Supreme Court justices were to retire, especially any of the more liberal justices, Bush and those in his camp would be given the gift of their dreams. It would be Bush's job as president to replace them. And, of course, the appointee or appointees would be from the Bush end of the political spectrum.

Please, please, pu-leeze, God, let them all hang on until Bush is out of there!! Please please please. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 06:59 PM

"Examine the religious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world, and you will scarcely be persuaded that they are anything but sick men's dreams."
-- David Hume
"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows."
-- Mark Twain
"The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives."
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi
"Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion have always proved themselves intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
-- Robert E. Lee

And the one most germane to this thread:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. "
--Benjamin Franklin

P.S. For good measure, one more quote showing how foreign Pat's ideas would be to the Founders of the US:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruit? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. "
--James Madison

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 06:15 PM

Rapaire, I think Guest/1:48 directed those remarks against those of us who disapprove of the unholy quartet.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 06:06 PM

"Falwell, Robertson and Bennett are targets because they make moral judgements. They must be destroyed."

Good heavens, Guest! YOU make moral judgements all the time! We all do! But I'm not going to destroy you, and if you try to destroy me, well, I'm NOT a nonviolent sort (as long as you aren't violent towards me) and I WILL shoot back.

By this simple statement you've put yourself in the same camp as FR&B. Hope you enjoy the company.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 05:19 PM

"Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?" [Pat Robertson]

One who started thread suggested that Robertson told God to kill the three judges he hates. Not true. Incediary, and should cause any reasonable person to suspect latter statements to be equally untrue.

I am not a fan of Pat Robertson, but I ask if his detractors can defend every word uttered by Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, both purported to be Christian men of the cloth?

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:32 PM

Oh, those Supremes - I opened the thread thinkinmg it was about the real Supremes.

After the way they landed the planet with Bush, the sooner all that bunch of superannuated lawyers retire, or emigrate to some distant planet, the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:09 PM

No, they are targets because they are men who make moral proclamations while personally promoting immoral actions. One need only look at Robertson's financial involvement in Liberia to see the content of his moral character.

"Judge not lest ye be judged." A devout Christian does not make judgements about others -- they seek to lead them down another path.

When faced with moral excrement like Robertson, it is easy to forget that there are many religious leaders who make statements about morality everyday by their actions. There's a good chance there's one in your neighborhood -- a man or woman who devotes their life to making the world a better place. Mother Theresa was a highly political woman, but she didn't sit in a TV studio and live in a fancy mansion. Her politics came from the trenches.

If there are people that God listens to (if you believe in one), they are people like Mother Theresa, not televangelists who are more concerned with lining their pockets with bloody money than any notion of morality or righteousness.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:38 PM

Guest, don't forget to add Oral Roberts to that illustrious lexicon. Remember when he said that God was going to call him 'home' if we didn't come up with the money he needed? I do. These men are power-glutted, trivial lightweights of insanity...

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 01:48 PM

Amos:

"because they are not about music, not of great interest to many poeple on this forum, and tend to be more divisive than otherwise."

I could say the same thing and be excoriated. Thanks!

Falwell, Robertson and Bennett are targets because they make moral judgements. They must be destroyed. Like weeding a garden. The title of the thread says plenty: "no alternate opinions need apply".

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 06:11 PM

" Asking three justices to retire is not a threat!"...sure, right...but that is not exactly what he said!!!

In the other thread, I note that Pat, in his 'prayer' asks God to "lay a heavy hand upon them.." (YOU can go listen!)

of course he would never explicitly make a threat, nor would he explicitly ask God to smite 3 old men...but he DOES ask good Christians to "storm the gates of Heaven" with prayer, hoping to lobby God to 'quote' DO something 'unquote'. You read that any way you wish. I understand it to mean Pat doesn't particularly care whether God inspires these deluded old Justices to retire, or whether they all 'get called home' within days of each other.

Pat Robertson is NOT a genteel pacifist...he invokes biblical references to war on unbelievers and moral backsliders constantly. THe man seems to think that if enough 'good' people beg God for a favor, why, the Almighty will take notice and make sure we are not troubled by this blight on our judicial system any longer!

Remember the guy who shot the abortion doctor? Could there possibly be someone among Pat's listeners out there willing to 'help' God with this task?........hmmmmmmmmm.....but, clearly, 'ol Pat never made a threat, no sir!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:48 PM

Typo from previous message: should read "I certainly do not agree WITH THE so-called Christian Conservative right...."

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:38 PM

I guess I should say that both Robertson and Sponge are wrong. There is something about finding the Vital Center in politics as well as religion that perhaps not everyone wishes to locate; not that I always find it myself, but it is worth looking for. I am not above suspecting some Christian leaders as playing to the conservative and liberal biases of people in order to receive financial support from them. I certainly do not agree so-called Christian Conservative Right-Wingers nor do I agree with the liberal left side that Sponge has attracted....

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:32 PM

Oh horsepucky, Guest. I submit to Gerard that what he encountered was not a reaction of closed minds as regards his views on Christian history, but a reaction of annoyance at his pedagogic, pedantic and somewhat authoritarian voicing about what Christianity is. Personally I think this forum, like the government, should steer clear of religous discussions of the sort Gerard began, not because I don't respect his views, his right to them, or even his right to communicate them, but because they are not about music, not of great interest to many poeple on this forum, and tend to be more divisive than otherwise.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:30 PM

Gerard, contrary to what GUEST just said, there is little I could find in your most recent post to disagree with. If GUEST is the GUEST I think it is, you'd be hard pressed to find a mind more closed than that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:20 PM

Gerard:

You are making a big mistake if you look for open minds here. There are very few. Do not change your beliefs to match the prevailing rant.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:23 PM

Frankham:

You write: "This has been precisely the position of Christianity in the Crusades and of Torquemada's Spain."

Recall that Spain was/is Catholic, and that Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" was written in response not only to the inquisition he saw in Spain but also the great number of deaths and persecutions in England between Catholics and Protestants and then the Puritan revolution.

Separation of Church and State is a Christian doctrine, although throughout history, men under the guise of Christianity, whom I would include Torquemada, Falwell and Robertson, have not wanted that boundary to exist. I certainly do not go along with persecuting anyone for their religious beliefs and I don'think that it is within the domain of the Church to do so. It was Rhode Island founder Roger Williams who said that "It does not matter to me if the captain of the ship (of the state) is Christian or non-Christian, the question is whether or not he can navigate."

I find it rather amusing that even though I support the Supreme Court's decision, there are readers here who have either wholly neglected what I wrote, or distorted it.

The Inquisition was a disastrous policy, the idea that a country needs to purge itself of different religious sects, even though such people, as the Jews in Spain did, were thriving, competent, able professionals, is totally absurd. There is a perversity in every religion that does not tolerate other beliefs. This may be fine for one's own conscience, one's own private life, but to make it a public policy is genuine evil.

You write: "The history of Christianity is not free from repression and subjections of the religions of others. This is unfortunate because this is not how I read the teachings of Jesus especially personified by the Sermon on the Mount. This leads me to the conclusion that many Christians today do not inherently practice their religion."

I agree with this statement. The truth is that whenever Christianity or any religion for that matter, tries to link itself with the power of the State for it's own purposes, at that instant, no longer follows Christ. I think in my statement about the Suni's and Shiites I should have included "Protestants and Catholics".

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: NicoleC
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:15 PM

"Every time he opens his mouth he's an embarrassment to Christianity. ... This notion that he can manipulate God by praying and getting God to accomplish whatever his political agenda is, is reprehensible. ... Not only is that arrogant. It's just simply inappropriate to use the spiritual life as a bludgeon on people with whom you disagree."

Rev. Joseph C. Hough Jr., president of New York City's Union Theological Seminary.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:08 PM

Please read title of topic. Asking three justices to retire is not a threat! Maybe we should think about the demand made to all Americans by worldwide Muslim leaders that we must convert to Islam or face the Consequences. That sounds like a threat!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 10:21 AM

True, but I do not think Gerard is one of them...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Deckman
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 09:52 AM

Hmmmm ... Gawd speaks in mysterious ways! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 07:04 AM

Bill, that's your punishment for channel surfing.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:12 AM

0



A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:54 PM

gee..I somehow missed this thread (perhaps I imagined the singing group)when I started that other one titled "Lord, you know their names"...I am late as usual, the clones have closed the other one and I am enjoying THIS one.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:27 PM

I do remember, Don! Exactly! I also do not believe the Bible was written with the intention that it be taken literally. I would also highly recommend the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary by Charles Filmore, founder, with his wife, Myrtle Filmore, of Unity School of Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century.

I am sorry you feel that way, Gerard.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Frankham
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:04 PM

Gerard,

You mentioned, "What then, do I do when I recognize that throughout history, even today, different sects of religions, Shiite and Suni's for example, whenever they get in power, tend to persecute the other, and strip them of their rights?"

This has been precisely the position of Christianity in the Crusades and of Torquemada's Spain. Even under early Islam, in the history of Budapest, Jews were tolerated and thriving. When Christians moved in defeating Islam, they buried the synagogues and temples and placed their own churches and cathedrals over them.

The history of Christianity is not free from repression and subjections of the religions of others. This is unfortunate because this is not how I read the teachings of Jesus especially personified by the Sermon on the Mount. This leads me to the conclusion that many Christians today do not inherently practice their religion.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 09:48 PM

Hi, Bobert.

Matthew 25:35-40. That's pretty much the guiding doctrine of the church I go to. That's why I go to it. Less talk. More do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:31 PM

Garard:

While Paul's letters are indeed well worth reading, Paul's own biases are not fully disguised. He is "rule" oriented and tends to be a tad on the dogmatic side. I don't recall anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John where Jesus made any reference to homosexuals. Yet, they seem to do a good job of telling and retelling the lessons of Jesus.

Don't get me wrong, I read Paul but with a less trusting heart than when I read, like Matthew.... who just happens to be my favorite in the Gospels.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Marion
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 07:28 PM

Re: Pat Robertson's given name is Marion. 'nuf said.

Hey! What exactly are you implying here?

Marion