Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death (virgin, beliefs, followers, America)

[Fascist Christ]

Originally Posted by Luke Wolf

Why does it seem that alot of wierd religion ideas come from California? I know its not the only place, but most of the odd religion things I've heard come from that state.

Probably because 1 of every 9 people in the USA are in California. It is more likely something will happen there than any other specific state. Also, it is easier to remember than if it came from somewhere less populous, like Wyoming. We don't hear much about those states. It's partially statistical, and partially psychological.

[Fascist Christ]

Originally Posted by CaptainXeroid

... a mythical concept that does not appear in the Constitution. When Jefferson referred to 'seperation of church and state', he meant that hte government should not restrict the practice of religion. He did not intend that religious people were not allowed to affect the political process or offer their opinions no matter how ill-informed.

What you are refering to is two-part. "Congress shall make no law (1)respecting an establishment of religion, or (2)prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or (3)abridging the freedom of speech,[...]" So, yes, freedom of religion is part of it (#2), and so is freedom of speech (#3). However, the separation of which he speakes is #1. The only way this would apply is if Congress actually made a law to authorize such an attack, and said law had no purpose independent of religion. Since no law has been passed, the separation has not been violated.

Originally Posted by CaptainXeroid

The main point here should be that Robertson advocated the assassination of a foreign head of state, which IIRC, is against US law. The next question I have would be is his statement in itself against the law?

Since we have #3, it cannot be against the law. The only exception could be if it was a threat, but it does not sound like he was threatening anybody.

No laws have been violated.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Maize

This is from the man that said feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Does anyone really take him seriously anymore?

That is one way of looking at but here is another. The qoutes you posted plus the original post bother me because they fit within the system or paradigm of christianty. One can be a pacifistic christian or a miltant one or anything inbetween.

Say for instance Robertson was a UU (just wanted to say something to make you shudder ), a buddhist, taoist or pagan. Could he fit his theory of life within the confines of those religions? No. He could not because UU is pacifistic in design, as is buddhism Taoism and paganisms structures reject most-all of his hate-speeches too on various other grounds.

Christianity however, does not. Some or most ( I am hoping most) christians may reject what he says but some can and do accept his hate-based speeches in part because they do not conflict with the structure of the religion itself.

Christianties miltaristic intrepetation by many justifies people like robertson.

[Green Gaia]

I get what you're saying Rob. But I think we should be careful not to blame all of Christianity for the militant and extreme interpertations of a few. Not that you were doing that, but it would be easy enough for others to jump to that conclusion.

And yes, you made me shudder.

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by Maize

I get what you're saying Rob. But I think we should be careful not to blame all of Christianity for the militant and extreme interpertations of a few. Not that you were doing that, but it would be easy enough for others to jump to that conclusion.

And yes, you made me shudder.

Excellent point and thank you for making it. I think we all realize sensationalism grabs the headlines, but that does not mean that Pat Robertson speaks for anyone but himself.

[Theodore]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

Hitler was believed by millions of people and look where that led.
He had religion to.
That sort of hatred is illegal in the UK he woul not only be off air but in Jail.

Terry
__________________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

As much as I think Pat Robertson is an idiot, I also think putting somebody in jail for hating something or someone is a very dangerous precedent.I see hatred on both the left and the right. Who is going to decide which hatred is OK and which isn’t? Today you get put in jail for hating gay people, tomorrow you get put in jail for hating Pat Robertson. Legislating emotion is a losing cause.

[Feathers in Hair]

Very true, Theodore. Of course, I don't think anyone is suggesting we should put people in jail for hating gay people. (Or at least I would hope not.) As much as I might disagree with what they say, I think a person has every right to say something.

Errr... I should add 'until it comes to inciting violence.' Then I tend to disagree.

[BUDDY]

Fact One: Hugo Chavez is a very, very dangerous man. I hope he retires in the near future.

Fact Two: Pat Robertson is a very, very dangerous man. I hope he retires in the near future.

[MagickIsFun]

Fact Three: I agree with EEWRED.

[robtex]

I listen to the Robertson speech on the news last night. He spent a few minutes calmly talking about "taking out" Chavez like it was no big thing and the USA does that on a regular basis. Based on the small few minute clip I hear from the 700 club where he made the speech I think that the federal gov (fbi) should press charges against him on behalf of Chavez.

In state and federal law if you threaten somebody with bodily harm (aka like suggest that he be murdered) a crimminal charge that can apply is called terroistic threat. In Texas I believe it was a state jail felony which is the lowest level of felony there is but I could be wrong on that.

Because he is a leader of a congregation with many followers it is not unreasonable to think that one of them, seeing him a modern day apostle to God would take it upon themselves to carry out this act as the "will of God".

I find it very ironic that as Engyo pointed out he can cross the "seperation of church and state" line but the goverment cannot strip him of his religious license even after he has blantly committed an action that has endangered americans living in Chavez country, created an intenational incident on behalf of the USA (aka politically positioned himself as a represenative of the usa AND of God), and worsened whatever relationship the two countries had.