Locke on atheists:
‘…those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.’
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church.
[/quote]
Absolutely. But when you said:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Funny thing about Locke, he wouldn’t have been in favor of prohibition
[/quote]
and
and
and
You were incorrect as I have shown above.[/quote]
Oh I’m right about Church and State. I’m right about entities imposing rule on man as well. They are very basic principals of Lockes, he is credited for being a huge influence on Thomas Jefferson and founded the very ideals of the U.S.
The only way you could ever argue that Locke believed things like Pot are immoral would be to argue that as God’s property we cannot rightly bring harm to ourselves. Because we are God’s property it is wrong for us to kill or bring harm to others as well as ourselves. Therefore if you believe that being intoxicated is harming (as with Marijuana) then it is wrong. But then so is alcohol, tobacco and anything else that may cause harm to God’s property.
The way Locke justified slavery was as such… In a state of nature there is always going to be an aggressor, and someone who’s rights are being violated/attacked. If the person being attacked successfully defeats the aggressor, then he has the right to his life and the right to either kill the aggressor or take him as a slave.
Like I said, you may want to read some more.
If you understand Locke’s ideas about the state of nature and the golden rule, then you will understand just what the heck I’m talking about.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oh I’m right about Church and State.
[/quote]
As I said it depends what you mean by “separation of church and state.” In the sense that Hugo Black, JFK and others misrepresented it - no Locke does not represent that as I have shown above. This is getting tedious now.
Again. Depends what you mean by “imposing.” Men are free to join or leave any religious institution, however Locke believed:
“It follows now that we consider what is the power of this church, and unto what laws it is subject. Forasmuch as no society, how free soever, or upon whatsoever slight occasion instituted, whether of philosophers for learning, of merchants for commerce, or of men of leisure for mutual conversation and discourse, no church or company, I say, can in the least subsist and hold together, but will presently dissolve and break to pieces, unless it be regulated by some laws, and the members all consent to observe some order.”
In the sense that men by mutual consent agree to these laws/covenants/social contracts - then I suppose they are not being “imposed.” However as I said, Locke did not believe that atheists should be tolerated.
Yes I know. You just didn’t articulate his principles very well to begin with.
Well I disagree entirely and I would suggest you read my post above quoting Locke on drunkeness and moral laws.
Are you a troll? Read this RE chapters 3 and 4 on Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government
'Locke starts off by defining war as a state of “enmity and destruction” brought about by one person’s pre-meditated attempts upon another’s life. The law of self-preservation, integral to the law of nature, dictates that a person may kill another person in self-defense. This definition rests upon the presumption that any aggression by one person against another constitutes a challenge to that person’s freedom. By this reasoning, one can justifiably kill a thief since an attack on one’s property represents a threat to one’s liberty.
Locke then outlines the differences between the state of nature and the state of war, noting that the two are NOT the same. The state of nature involves people living together, governed by reason, without a common superior, whereas the state of war occurs when people make designs of force upon other people, without a common authority. In this case, the attacked party has a right to war. Want of a common judge or authority is the defining characteristic of the state of nature; force without right is adequate basis for the state of war.’
Ah…likewise.
Actually I understand the first two but not the last. Let’s just say you have your Locke and I have mine.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The only way you could ever argue that Locke believed things like Pot are immoral would be to argue that as God’s property we cannot rightly bring harm to ourselves. Because we are God’s property it is wrong for us to kill or bring harm to others as well as ourselves. Therefore if you believe that being intoxicated is harming (as with Marijuana) then it is wrong. But then so is alcohol, tobacco and anything else that may cause harm to God’s property.
[/quote]
Remember, I didn’t say it was “immoral.” In fact, I specifically said it’s more complex than that. And recall my quotes from Locke:
In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding John Locke makes a distinction between the description of an act - drunkenness: and the appraisal of the act as good, bad or indifferent. To appraise something we need to refer to some form of rule or measure. Locke describes three types: divine law, civil law and the law of opinion(which he called 'the law of fashion or private censure.) The desire for happiness and aversion to misery are ‘principles of action…lodged in our appetites…If left to their full swing, they would carry men to the over-turning of all morality.’ The function of moral laws is to ‘curb and restrain these exorbitant desires.’ The true ground of morality ‘can only be the will and law of god.’
Locke:
'The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment that they have framed of things.
It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use of arguments, and thereby draw the heterodox into the way of truth, and procure their salvation. I grant it; but this is common to him with other men. In teaching, instructing, and redressing the erroneous by reason, he may certainly do what becomes any good man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off either humanity or Christianity; but it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties.
Do you see what he’s saying there? Elected officials can proselytise - atheists shouldn’t be tolerated. Do you see now how far-removed that is from the modern concept of “separation of church and state” which seeks to remove everything to do with god from every publically funded institution and use “positive rights” to force private religious institutions and individuals to do things/enter into agreements that go against their most fundamental beliefs? That’s the difference I’m trying to highlight. So no, Locke is not the father of the concept of “separation of church and state” in the modern sense.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The way Locke justified slavery was as such… In a state of nature there is always going to be an aggressor, and someone who’s rights are being violated/attacked. If the person being attacked successfully defeats the aggressor, then he has the right to his life and the right to either kill the aggressor or take him as a slave.
[/quote]
Locke on the state of nature:
‘The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the ranks of creatures are for ours. Everyone as he is bound to preserve himself, and not quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought be as much as he can preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb or goods of another.’
‘In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure of God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so becomes dangerous to mankind…’
Mark Levin on Locke:
'Unlike (Thomas) Hobbes, Locke observed that men generally get along with each other in the state of nature, for their own sake and the sake of the community, although it is certainly not perfect. A state of war exists in the state of nature only when one individual violates the laws of nature - that is the inalienable rights of another.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Come up with a way to test for impairment at the time the person does something stupid (ex. getting behind the wheel of a car) and it would get legalized real quick.[/quote]
They’ve been working on something like this for about 20 years. Apparently they’re having trouble coming up with a reliable test that determines how long it’s been since someone smoked. Simple bloodtests don’t say whether you smoked last night or ten minutes ago. A saliva test is currently the newest and most realistic possibility, but state legislatures that are trying to enact this can’t decide on how many nanograms of THC there need to be in someone’s saliva to before he/she is impaired.
Personally, I say legalize it and forget about it. I’ve done a lot of research into this issue as it pertains to California. As far as Cal. goes, there isn’t a single credible study that indicates with any certainty that weed would bring in profits via tax revenue. I’ve explained the reasons why ad nauseum on here in the past, so if you really want to know why revenues are dubious at best, PM me and I’ll tell you why. Of course, this is only in reference to Prop. 19 in California, which was defeated in 2010.[/quote]
I would think that the majority of the money could come in the saving from not having to search out, prosecute and incarcerate all marijuana offenses.[/quote]
Don’t think that just because the DEA and similar agencies/bureaucracies have a budget set at, say, 10 million per year, that it’s going to go down if weed were legal. All legal weed means is more resources devoted to prosecuting other drug offenses. It will NOT lead to a shrinking of anyone’s budget. [/quote]
Would you rather the DEA go after meth/crack/heroin/opiates…or weed?
Who is more dangerous to society?
More resources to more dangerous criminals…we not longer have the luxury to spend money on non-violent THC offenders.
Your either or question will have to wait for another time my friend. Pot will not be legalized in the vast majority of the country for a very good long time to come.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Your either or question will have to wait for another time my friend. Pot will not be legalized in the vast majority of the country for a very good long time to come.[/quote]
I love this country…but we have an annoying habit of stepping over dollars to get to dimes.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
So why don’t you explain these charges? How is he tied into business or politics in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus? You don’t like his religious message so he’s a bad person right? Just give him his due. How many starving orphans did you feed last year? Is the world better off having Robertson in it or Zeb and Storey?
He’s in our face daily and if we don’t like his message he’s a bad guy automatically to many. I can think of a very long list of public figures that I may personally not agree with but appreciate what they do with some of their time and money. Give Robertson his due!
[/quote]
This for starters:
"Operation Blessing’s controversial history
According to its website, Operation Blessing International was founded in 1978 by Robertson “to help struggling individuals and families by matching their needs for items such as clothing, appliances, and vehicles with donated items from viewers of The 700 Club.” In 1986, Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation (OBI) was formed as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to handle international relief projects. In 1993, all Operation Blessing activities were transferred to OBI.
In an October 2002 profile of Robertson’s Operation Blessing entitled “Pat Robertson counts his ble$$ings,” I reported that:
While OBI trumpets its work at home and abroad through its website, other sources provide a more nuanced picture. In 1996, the Norfolk, VA-based Virginia-Pilot newspaper reported that two pilots who were hired by the charity to fly humanitarian aid to Zaire in 1994 were used almost exclusively for Robertson’s diamond mining operations. Chief pilot Robert Hinkle claimed that in the six months he flew for Operation Blessing, only one or two of more than 40 flights were humanitarian – the rest carried mining equipment. OBI resources were being diverted to support the African Development Co., a private corporation run by Robertson. At the time, Robertson also had a special relationship with Zaire’s late dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko.
“My first impression when I took the job was that we’d be called Operation Blessing and we’d be doing humanitarian work,” Hinkle, a former Peace Corps volunteer told the Virginia-Pilot. “We got over there and ‘Operation Blessing’ was painted on the tails of the airplanes, but we were doing no humanitarian relief at all. We were just supplying the miners and flying the dredges from Kinshasa out to Tshikapa.”
At first, an OPI spokesperson denied the charges. Later, however, a written statement from the group admitted Robertson’s mining company used Operation Blessing planes “from time to time,” but that most air missions in Zaire were for humanitarian or training purposes. “For example, medicine was transported to some 17 clinics in Zaire,” the spokesman told the paper. Hinkle called the OPI statement “a clear-cut lie.”
In February 1995, Time magazine reported that Robertson’s relationship with Sese Seko began after a branch of Operation Blessing “botched a corn-cultivation project on a 50,000-acre farm outside the capital, Kinshasa.”
Time also reported that in 1993, during the Rwandan refugee crisis, Operation Blessing “was criticized for spending too much money on transportation, pulling its workers out too soon and proselytizing. ‘They were laying on hands,’ an American aid worker said. They were ‘speaking in tongues and holding services while people were dying all around,’ she added.” Time points out that although “many relief agencies are notorious for mismanagement and backbiting… Operation Blessing drew a considerable volume of negative reviews from fellow good Samaritans.”
Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian minister who heads up Christianity.about.com, recently pointed out that in 2001 Operation Blessing made some awfully strange purchases. The organization that prides itself on helping the poor and hungry in third world countries spent more than $2.5 million on Ensure, a dietary supplement and Splenda, a no calorie sweetener – and more than $10.4 million on candy and panty hose.
Even more disturbing is that Operation Blessing rendered a direct grant of slightly more than $2 million to Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network – “more than half,” Henderson says, “of the entire OBI budget for direct grants.”
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Your either or question will have to wait for another time my friend. Pot will not be legalized in the vast majority of the country for a very good long time to come.[/quote]
I love this country…but we have an annoying habit of stepping over dollars to get to dimes.[/quote]
I wouldn’t sweat this one, there are many, many things that we do wrong. For example, we all learn in Psych 101 that in order to get a behavior repeated you reward it. It’s called positive reinforcement. So, what do we do for people who say they can’t find a job? We reward them for not working. I wouldn’t be against some sort of stipend to hold them over for a few months. But we literally pay them not to work year after year, and actually assume that they’re trying as hard as they can to work when we are encouraging them NOT to do so.
It’s all politics pal…
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
So why don’t you explain these charges? How is he tied into business or politics in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus? You don’t like his religious message so he’s a bad person right? Just give him his due. How many starving orphans did you feed last year? Is the world better off having Robertson in it or Zeb and Storey?
He’s in our face daily and if we don’t like his message he’s a bad guy automatically to many. I can think of a very long list of public figures that I may personally not agree with but appreciate what they do with some of their time and money. Give Robertson his due!
[/quote]
This for starters:
"Operation Blessing’s controversial history
According to its website, Operation Blessing International was founded in 1978 by Robertson “to help struggling individuals and families by matching their needs for items such as clothing, appliances, and vehicles with donated items from viewers of The 700 Club.” In 1986, Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation (OBI) was formed as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to handle international relief projects. In 1993, all Operation Blessing activities were transferred to OBI.
In an October 2002 profile of Robertson’s Operation Blessing entitled “Pat Robertson counts his ble$$ings,” I reported that:
While OBI trumpets its work at home and abroad through its website, other sources provide a more nuanced picture. In 1996, the Norfolk, VA-based Virginia-Pilot newspaper reported that two pilots who were hired by the charity to fly humanitarian aid to Zaire in 1994 were used almost exclusively for Robertson’s diamond mining operations. Chief pilot Robert Hinkle claimed that in the six months he flew for Operation Blessing, only one or two of more than 40 flights were humanitarian – the rest carried mining equipment. OBI resources were being diverted to support the African Development Co., a private corporation run by Robertson. At the time, Robertson also had a special relationship with Zaire’s late dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko.
“My first impression when I took the job was that we’d be called Operation Blessing and we’d be doing humanitarian work,” Hinkle, a former Peace Corps volunteer told the Virginia-Pilot. “We got over there and ‘Operation Blessing’ was painted on the tails of the airplanes, but we were doing no humanitarian relief at all. We were just supplying the miners and flying the dredges from Kinshasa out to Tshikapa.”
At first, an OPI spokesperson denied the charges. Later, however, a written statement from the group admitted Robertson’s mining company used Operation Blessing planes “from time to time,” but that most air missions in Zaire were for humanitarian or training purposes. “For example, medicine was transported to some 17 clinics in Zaire,” the spokesman told the paper. Hinkle called the OPI statement “a clear-cut lie.”
In February 1995, Time magazine reported that Robertson’s relationship with Sese Seko began after a branch of Operation Blessing “botched a corn-cultivation project on a 50,000-acre farm outside the capital, Kinshasa.”
Time also reported that in 1993, during the Rwandan refugee crisis, Operation Blessing “was criticized for spending too much money on transportation, pulling its workers out too soon and proselytizing. ‘They were laying on hands,’ an American aid worker said. They were ‘speaking in tongues and holding services while people were dying all around,’ she added.” Time points out that although “many relief agencies are notorious for mismanagement and backbiting… Operation Blessing drew a considerable volume of negative reviews from fellow good Samaritans.”
Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian minister who heads up Christianity.about.com, recently pointed out that in 2001 Operation Blessing made some awfully strange purchases. The organization that prides itself on helping the poor and hungry in third world countries spent more than $2.5 million on Ensure, a dietary supplement and Splenda, a no calorie sweetener – and more than $10.4 million on candy and panty hose.
Even more disturbing is that Operation Blessing rendered a direct grant of slightly more than $2 million to Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network – “more than half,” Henderson says, “of the entire OBI budget for direct grants.”
http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=108
[/quote]
So what you’re saying is that you want him to run his charity a different way? That transporting medicine to 17 clinics is not enough? That two humanitarian flights to feed poor children in Africa is not enough?
As for the expenditures for Ensure and Splenda those drinks have quite a bit of nutrition in them for those who are used to drinking out of a puddle of dirty water.
I’m sure he’s far from perfect but you need to lighten up, you don’t have to like him or Christianity. All you have to do is stop and think about how many people Storey and Zeb fed over the last 20 years to fully appreciate what this man has done.
I’m saying that I think he is intricately involved in politics and business in a way that is kosher of a “man of god”. I’m saying that his organization appears to have some shady aspects that are “oh yeah by the way we fed kids” but more focused on engineering profits. I’m saying that I think he has said and done some pretty anti-Christian things in the past and leading up to the present. Support for assassination (taking out) Chavez? Not very Jesus-like. Supporting China’s one child policy (which btw has forced abortions), not very Jesus like either. I think he is basically a politician (son of one at that) in sheep’s clothing (lamb of god, how fitting) and uses Christians’ money to fuel his business and political ventures.
While I haven’t gone out and raised the funds that he has, I do donate every year. Can’t say how many kids I fed directly through my funds but donated 7,000 of my own money last year to fund charitable work in these areas. Again I didn’t use the pretext of religion to take others money and then donate, I did it with my own money. I also didn’t use funds under the pretext of a religious organization to further my business ventures.
I like the message of Christianity just fine. I grew up in Va Beach, Ive met him. You know when you meet a thief or a conniver, he is one.
Splenda had no nutritional value btw. Ensure is chocolate milk with synthetic vitamins but yes better than mud water.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I’m saying that I think he is intricately involved in politics and business in a way that is kosher of a “man of god”. I’m saying that his organization appears to have some shady aspects that are “oh yeah by the way we fed kids” but more focused on engineering profits. I’m saying that I think he has said and done some pretty anti-Christian things in the past and leading up to the present. Support for assassination (taking out) Chavez? Not very Jesus-like. Supporting China’s one child policy (which btw has forced abortions), not very Jesus like either. I think he is basically a politician (son of one at that) in sheep’s clothing (lamb of god, how fitting) and uses Christians’ money to fuel his business and political ventures.
While I haven’t gone out and raised the funds that he has, I do donate every year. Can’t say how many kids I fed directly through my funds but donated 7,000 of my own money last year to fund charitable work in these areas. Again I didn’t use the pretext of religion to take others money and then donate, I did it with my own money. I also didn’t use funds under the pretext of a religious organization to further my business ventures.
I like the message of Christianity just fine. I grew up in Va Beach, Ive met him. You know when you meet a thief or a conniver, he is one.
Splenda had no nutritional value btw. Ensure is chocolate milk with synthetic vitamins but yes better than mud water.[/quote]
I don’t know where you get your information , but Jesus said kill your enemy He also thought the poor and sick were that way because they were lazy and had bad habits and should just die so they do not cost society any money because money is the root of all things good, so there
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I’m saying that I think he is intricately involved in politics and business in a way that is kosher of a “man of god”. I’m saying that his organization appears to have some shady aspects that are “oh yeah by the way we fed kids” but more focused on engineering profits.[/quote]
You’ve shown me no proof that he was involved in anything “shady.” People use jets for many different reasons. He feeds kids, he helps his buiness, he fly’s VIP’s around the country. So what? And what’s wrong with profits? Because he is a man of God he’s not allowed to make money? Don’t be silly. Christ talked more about money than anything else.
Then all you have to do is actually name them.
As a public figure he said that killing this one man would save thousands. Sounds like the Christian thing to do.
I’ve not heard anything on this before why don’t you give me a background.- Thanks. I know he’s staunchly against abortion so I’m sure he was not calling for more abortions.
Yet, he’s brought people to Christ. Built churches all over the globe, fed the hungry and built homes for the poor. AND…he’s never held elected office. Has he made a lot of money -YES, but no where in the Christian Bible does it say making money is evil.
And you are a good man for doing such. I too donate on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis. But if you combine what you and I did in our entire lives you wouldn’t have as much good being done as Robertson does in one day!
maybe you should have you could have helped far, far more people. And since he has broken no law and in any sort of trouble I think you are making far more of this than you should. But you don’t like him so I guess you are entitled—right?
Yet, you have no proof. All you have are instances where YOU think he should have done X and he did Y.
Yeah, Splenda is a sweetener which can certainly brighten the day of the impoverished when added to their meal. And as you say Ensure has protein and vitamins obviously purchased to feed the poor.
What a lousy guy that Robertson is! He should have purchased a higher quality protein for those starving African children.
The Operation Blessing thing was shady, he was using planes supposed to do charity work for a profit venture into diamond mining and when it was all brought to light his response was “well we we’re planning on using that diamond money to free the people of the Congo”–yeah right, bs artist! This particular misappropriation of charity resources is scandalous honestly and me thinks if he wasnt such a staunch figure in the Republican party you would see this plain as day. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing’s planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire’s then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.
Just did and his un-Christian like quotes are all over the web, pages of them. This is not the religion of peace that Jesus promoted kind of Christianity that he spews.
Actually what he said was : “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”
Love thy enemy, right?
Pat Robertson �¢?? one of the most prominent leaders of the pro-life movement in the United States �¢?? recently condoned China�¢??s |one-child policy| and said the United States should not try to interfere with China�¢??s alleged policy of forced abortions.
In an interview with CNN�¢??s Wolf Blitzer, Robertson said,
I don�¢??t agree with it [the one-child policy]. But at the same time, they�¢??ve got 1.2 billion people, and they don�¢??t know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable �¢?�¦ I think that right now they�¢??re doing what they have to do. I don�¢??t agree with the forced abortion, but I don�¢??t think the United States needs to interfere with what they�¢??re doing internally in this regard.
not what I would call a staunchly anti-abortion stance
Nowhere but the dealings and way he goes about making money is what I’m talking about not just the simple act of making money. "The network’s Family Channel, which promoted family-friendly entertainment, was spun off in 1990 to International Family Entertainment Inc., led by Pat Robertson and his son Tim. In 1997, that company was sold for $1.9 billion to Fox Kids Worldwide Inc., which later sold it to the Disney Co.
“He built this company by getting donations and then took this network and sold it for well over $1 billion,” said David John Marley, who teaches history at Vanguard University of Southern California. “That’s money that he and his sons got to keep.”
I think he has broken laws to be honest. I think he has intermingled tax free funds into for profit ventures. I hope history shows this to be true in plain sight. This guy does a much better sum up. http://www.gregpalast.com/pat-robertson-i-dont-have-to-be-nice-to-the-spirit-of-the-antichrist/
I posted what I have.
Oh man pal fix the quote function it’s too painful to read the way it is.
Thanks
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh man pal fix the quote function it’s too painful to read the way it is.
Thanks[/quote]
Ok so I’m not the only one that it made cross eyed.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You’ve shown me no proof that he was involved in anything “shady.” People use jets for many different reasons. He feeds kids, he helps his buiness, he fly’s VIP’s around the country. So what? And what’s wrong with profits? Because he is a man of God he’s not allowed to make money? Don’t be silly. Christ talked more about money than anything else.[/quote]
The Operation Blessing thing was shady, he was using planes supposed to do charity work for a profit venture into diamond mining and when it was all brought to light his response was “well we we’re planning on using that diamond money to free the people of the Congo”–yeah right, bs artist! This particular misappropriation of charity resources is scandalous honestly and me thinks if he wasnt such a staunch figure in the Republican party you would see this plain as day. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing’s planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire’s then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.
Just did and his un-Christian like quotes are all over the web, pages of them. This is not the religion of peace that Jesus promoted kind of Christianity that he spews.
Actually what he said was : “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”
Love thy enemy, right?
Pat Robertson, one of the most prominent leaders of the pro-life movement in the United States, recently condoned China’s one-child policy and said the United States should not try to interfere with China’s alleged policy of forced abortions.
In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Robertson said,
I don’t agree with it (the one-child policy). But at the same time, they’ve got 1.2 billion people, and they don’t know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable, I think that right now they’re doing what they have to do. I don’t agree with the forced abortion, but I don’t think the United States needs to interfere with what they’re doing internally in this regard.
not what I would call a staunchly anti-abortion stance
Nowhere but the dealings and way he goes about making money is what I’m talking about not just the simple act of making money. "The network’s Family Channel, which promoted family-friendly entertainment, was spun off in 1990 to International Family Entertainment Inc., led by Pat Robertson and his son Tim. In 1997, that company was sold for $1.9 billion to Fox Kids Worldwide Inc., which later sold it to the Disney Co.
“He built this company by getting donations and then took this network and sold it for well over $1 billion,” said David John Marley, who teaches history at Vanguard University of Southern California. “That’s money that he and his sons got to keep.”
I think he has broken laws to be honest. I think he has intermingled tax free funds into for profit ventures. I hope history shows this to be true in plain sight. This guy does a much better sum up.
I posted what I have.[/quote]
Maybe that’ll fix it, probably won’t.
fixed now?