Pat Robertson wants to assassinate Venezuela's Chavez

[Yankee Doodle]

Well then . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

I don't know what to say about this one, folks. While I decry at every level the filthy overt operatives of Christian evangelical over-enthusiasm for political direction in this country, there is a rightist slice of me that says "Chavez be damned!"

Pat Robertson may be a festering turd and wholly uneducated invalid, but his speech against the anti-American tirades of Victor Chavez carry some validity.

God aside (and God should always be placed aside when talking of poltics!!! especially assassinations since I doubt he wants to hear about them), I think the filthy reverand Robertson is saying what a lot of people are thinking.

Does the USA have the right to assassinate? Well, technically no, it is off limits given Ford's (??? - I think it was him) false gumption to outlaw statist assasination in the 1970s. But in a an entirely different case of different principles, with an appreciation for extenuating circumstances such as a threat to our peace with regards to Latin America, yes, America must do what is necessary.

And besides, after tumultuous events between the 1950s until the early 1990s in Latin America, it is in our BEST INTERESTS to enforce the peace in that region . . . therefore, we must not allow Chavez to threaten that.

Mind you, you may be excused from this idea should you come to understand that I represent a faction of the American right that believes in outright American military power to persuade others to follow the righteous path we are setting.

[Mr. Glass]

Well, the game is on.... It's only a matter of time before a Hugo Chaves supporter assassinates Pat Robertson is my guess.

You just don't go around saying you want to assassinate world leaders, no matter what our political alignment with them is... it opens up a can of worms that's difficult to close. I wonderif pat robertson fully understand the implications of what he's suggesting.

-Doug

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

It's just like CNN to put it in such negative terms as did, since the Communist News Network hates christians. Calling for terrorism is he, well he isn't the one giving morale aide to the enemy, now is he?

[Mr. Glass]

So... I contacted the FCC about this....

Its my opinion, and I asked for clarification, that Pat Robertson, through the 700 club, engaged in political speech not covered by the first amendment, specificlly you're not allowed to issue threats against government officials. The rule doesn't specify WHICH government.

Furthermore, The CBN, which produces and distribues The 700 Club is a non-profit religious organization. They're not allowed to engage in campaigning for any political cause or candidate, yet they do so on a regular basis, in violation of the law.

Up till now some level of politics has been allowed, but it stops now. The FCC is getting flooded with requests to pull their broadcast licence, and vigilant citizens are starting to pay attention to what's being said on our airwaves.

If Churches want to PAY for their right to broadcast, as does every private citizen and corporation, then that's fine and they can say what they want. As it stands now they're given tax free status and fee-free use of our bandwidth. It's the same as the ACLU when it comes to the law and paperwork. If they engage in politics they pay.

-Doug

[All American Kid]

You just don't go around saying you want to assassinate world leaders, no matter what our political alignment with them is... it opens up a can of worms that's difficult to close. I wonderif pat robertson fully understand the implications of what he's suggesting.

-Doug

Well Pat Robertson's remarks are definitely more rational than a Democratic ad to call for the public execution of Rumsfeld (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-04-13-fla-dems-rumsfeld_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA) or Democratic canidate David Blomstrom calling for the death penalty of President Bush (http://www.jail4bush.org/death4bush/) or most sicking a City Counsel Canidate handing our flyers calling for the assasination of Bush and the rape of his daughters (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/09/17/backpage/9_16_0421_10_52.txt) .

Well that's beside the point which is should or should we not adopt a policy of pre-emptive assassinations? Well it would have been very nice if Clinton had the... umm..err.. well lets say foresight to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. I think it is interesting how liberals are jumping up and down pointing out that Robinson is a part of a Christian group. Maybe if he was Muslim it would be okay and we would have to "feel his pain". Me personally I don't think we should take ANY option off of the table when dealing with matters of foreign affairs. I wouldn't want to immedately send in Delta forces or whoever to gun down rowdy leaders but I see no problem in considering all possiblities. --AAK

[Wadi66]

Here is another point to consider. This comes from another forum I frequent that is pretty heavily laden with people with intelligence gathering backgrounds.

[WQ: Many in the left-wing print-radio-TV media will be howling to the moon over these statements. But most importantly, I guarund-amn-tee everybody that Chavez himself, and possibly Castro too, will loudly scream in protest to US & international media outlets over Pat Robertson's remarks.
Pat Robertson did not make these statements blindly or out of heat or personal motives. There is a blunt reason.
I am going let evrybody on this forum know some very little publicly-known info. The intelligence reports that have started leaking out over the weekend. That Chavez wanted last weekend to use the Venezulean Navy to attack 2 US warships; the amphibous carrier USS Bataan and mine-countermeasure patrol ship USS Devastator; that were near the Netherland Antillees as part of the 15-nation anti-terror exercise focusing on the Panama Canal; dubbed 'FUERZAS ALIADAS PANAMAX 2005'.
Basically, Castro told Chavez "nada". That's right-Fidel Castro-the same Castro who in 1983 wanted to launch nerve gas-airstrikes on Grenada because of the US invasion ordere by Reagan. The Russian's told Castro he could if he wanted to-just don't expect help from the Soviet Union when Cuba suddenly starts glowing in the Dark!!
But, the reprieve may be short-lived. US Central Command has recieved intel that Venezuela & Cuba are preparing for war this year-around Oct-Dec. Syria, Iran and North Korea are preparing for imminent war as well. USCC believes that Cuba & Venezuela will provoke a military confrontation with US, take several blows from US retaliatory strikes; then the US will have to back off when both countries receive cover and protection from the Russian aircraft carrier Kuzestinov and its huge battle group scheduled to deploy in the Atlantic this fall!]
http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=461&pid=4328&st=0&#entry4328

[KenHorse]

And the Lamestream media ignored it when a Clinton Administration official suggested assasination too. Gee, imagine that! The Lamestream Media ignoring the misactions of a Democrat!

(From NewsMax)

Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination

Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson prompted a firestorm of media outrage on Tuesday after he suggested that the Bush administration should assassinate a foreign leader who posed a threat to the U.S. - in this case, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.

Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.
His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."

"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."

Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.

"We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.

Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:

"If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."

The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted airstrike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."

The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."

Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."

[Yankee Doodle]

Hmmm . . . Perhaps the great divide between Christianity and Islam is more bridged now in Robertson's call to assassinate Hugo Chavez.

Sounds a little like a Christian fatwa and hence brings out a need for reconciliation in terms and motives.

We don't want to become hypocrites either . . . and this is taking into account what I personally said in the opening statements when I started this forum yesterday. Despite my approval of employing the necessary means to avert terrorism and other attacks against the U.S. I'm standing somewhat on soft ground when I consider my own contradictions.

Anyway, an assassination as a strategic move or a Christian fatwa hypocrisy, I still don' think that Pat Robertson is the ideal individual to motion it (see my first post in this forum to learn my thoughts on this man).

[Topiary Lady]

Bloody amazing how the press picks up the rantings of a guy like Pat Robertson and runs with the story as though Pat's got a direct line into the CIA. We all know that the reason for the coverage is because Mr. Robertson has that 'Christian' label attached to him.

Personally, I'm just a bit peeved at Pat for potentially blowing our cover in any assasination plot against Mr. Chavez. I'd have no problem with the US sending Mr. Chavez for a ride on the southbound train. Good riddance.

Mr. Glass,
Did you also contact the FCC in this last election cycle as well as the one before that when the Dem's suddenly became regular attendees in the black churches, using their pulpits to gather votes?

No, I did'nt think so.

[All American Kid]

Trust me YD the only reason that Christianity is an issue in Robertson's statement is to try to link Bush into the scenario. liberal media template: if somehow the story can remotely embarrass or harm the current administration, RUN WITH IT!! --AAK

[FKLBRLS]

Well personally I think that Pat Robertsen went a bit over the edge at publicly announcing that we should assasinate Chavez, but he does make a good point. Chavez is becoming somewhat of a threat to the US, and although I don't think we need to be loading our handguns just yet, if he proves to be an imminent threat to the US, then we're gonna have to do something about him.

Still, I believe Robertsen has the right to free speech, although he does not have the right to be listened to. He's taken Christianity a bit too far. Not only is this against Christianity, of which I am a member, but also it will fuel the media's anti-Christian fire. It is true that his comment is being publicized more since he is a Christian. Ultimately I think Robertsen was just voicing a rather extreme opinion, which is a right entitled to ALL Americans. Extreme hippie liberals call for the assasination of Bush, Robertsen "calls" for the assasination of Chavez.

[Mr. Glass]

Mr. Glass,
Did you also contact the FCC in this last election cycle as well as the one before that when the Dem's suddenly became regular attendees in the black churches, using their pulpits to gather votes?

No, I did'nt think so.


Step 1: Insert Tab "FOOT" into slot "MOUTH"

I actually contacted the IRS when I heard about politicians campaigning within churches.

Topiary Lady, I think you'd do well to know that I am not a democrat. I am by my own admission more liberal than most of you, but I consider myself an Independant. My only complaint is that I cannot vote in primary election.

I'm very critical of the Federal Government, reguardless of who is sitting in the oval office. I am also highly critical of the way Churches are given a tax free status in this country. I'm not against the churches, just critical of the way tax exemptions are doled out by the IRS.

The FCC has no say in what churches do or say, the only reason I contacted them about Pat Robertson is because he is the owner of CBN. CBN is licenced by the FCC to broadcast their programing, but they have a private licence, therefore the FCC cannot controll what is said. They can only get involved if the station is an educational channel, which are free licences, and subject to some serious rules.

The FCC advised me to take the matter up with the IRS as CBN is a non-profit relegious organization.

Also, I would remind you that many Republican and Conservative canidates were caught campaigning through the "white" churches as well. Also, recently several Republican members of Congress participated in 2 events called "Justice Sunday" that involved the heavy mixing of politics and religion.

I'm not religious, but I'm not anti-religion by any means. I am a very spiritual person with a personally founded faith in God that requires no confirmation through congregated worship. That said, I would seriously caution anyone involved in a religious group to NOT push the separation of church and state issue. This is something that could seriously backlash the christian community in 2008/2010/2012. I don't think there's anyone telling you that you can't worship, just keep it out of the Government is all that's being asked. Mutual respect.

Anyways thats a topic for another time.

Again... I will ask this question, it seems relevant again:

Who Would Jesus Murder?

-Doug

[Wadi66]

Glass, I appreciate you not liking the tax free status but on the other hand, the govt requires Churches to become Corporations to receive that tax free status. Otherwise they are heavily taxed. Isn't that infringing on the separation of Church and State?

[Android]

I was just on a liberal site last night where this was/is a topic. Someone calling for the network to fire him. Now, if it were a Dixie Chick being threatened to loose their cntract over something they said would'nt that be an attempt to silence their freedom of speach? I'm not picking a side, I think Pat is a mental reject but it IS a two way street. We have to let all morons spout off, not just actors. If we fire Pat then people like the Chicks, Sean Penn and the whole lot get canned, thats pretty Commie.

[Yankee Doodle]

Why is someone using Jesus as an avatar?

I swear . . . it is so difficult trying to be taken seriously as intellectual and progressive proponents of the right and of the Republican Party in the greater political society when over and over again we are curmudgeoned by those who insist on putting the pulpit into politics.

I'm sorry . . . I just cannot leave this point alone. I, like Glass, have a spiritual life, in fact I am Christian and proud of it, but like him I know that there is fine line between accredited polity participation and over-zealous grandstanding.

And trust me, the liberal press will nail us on it. As they should. If they made the word of God as much as Big Bird their (fundamentalist) mascot or raison d'etre, then I, too, would receive their debate less seriously.

[Topiary Lady]

Uh, Mr. Glass, there are plenty of religious programs on both the television and radio that spent a good deal of time promoting the Kerry candidacy last election. Turn on an AM radio any sunday morning and you'll hear the anti-Bush rhetoric these days. It's not limited to non-broadcast church services. Of course I don't really know if these are all tax free organizations or not. That's simply not something I would be interested in devoting my time to. If you want to though, you have my blessing.

Also, there is no need to explain to me that you are not a democrat. I could be wrong about this Mr. Glass, but I do not believe that I ever said that you WERE a democrat. Perhaps you could look around this site and point to where I have mentioned your political party affiliation.

Geez....you know your having a bad day when you're being corrected by a guy who thinks that a booger on a wall can actually be a work of 'art'.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and have my truck washed so I can get all of that bug splat (art) off of the windshield.

TL

[Wadi66]

Why is someone using Jesus as an avatar?Don't let it bother you YD. I put it there for a reason and just forgot to take it off. Thanks for reminding me. Hmmmmmm, wonder what I can put in its place..........

[rightwingxtremist]

Bloody amazing how the press picks up the rantings of a guy like Pat Robertson and runs with the story as though Pat's got a direct line into the CIA. We all know that the reason for the coverage is because Mr. Robertson has that 'Christian' label attached to him.

It doesn't seem so amazing to me. Let's face it, the lefties are gunning for Christians, as are some of the list members posting here and the one who started this thread.

Essentially, their idea of political utopia is one that holds no place for anyone of faith. It is through their form of bigotry that they assume any person of faith is not worthy of representation, by stretching the establishment clause until it screams. Our "religion" is no more seperable from us than we are seperable from our rights under the constitution.

It seems to me that they would rather see Christians as some sort of second-class citizens who are not allowed to speak, assemble, or hold any government office.

For lefties, politics is religion, and they hold to their un-principled beliefs with equal dedication as religious people hold to their faith.

- Nate

[rightwingxtremist]

I swear . . . it is so difficult trying to be taken seriously as intellectual and progressive proponents of the right and of the Republican Party in the greater political society when over and over again we are curmudgeoned by those who insist on putting the pulpit into politics.

Such is an observation that can only be attributed to the lack of tolerance for and knowledge of people of faith. Suddenly being a Christian is a red flag meaning "Don't listen to them, they aren't intellectual, they's mud people".

Yes, the persecution is already upon us, and the slaughter of Christians is not too far down the road...

- Nate

[rightwingxtremist]

So... I contacted the FCC about this....

Perhaps you would be good enough to contact the FCC about Julian Bond of the NAACP as well.

- Nate

[Yankee Doodle]

It doesn't seem so amazing to me. Let's face it, the lefties are gunning for Christians, as are some of the list members posting here and the one who started this thread.

Essentially, their idea of political utopia is one that holds no place for anyone of faith. It is through their form of bigotry that they assume any person of faith is not worthy of representation, by stretching the establishment clause until it screams. Our "religion" is no more seperable from us than we are seperable from our rights under the constitution.

It seems to me that they would rather see Christians as some sort of second-class citizens who are not allowed to speak, assemble, or hold any government office.

For lefties, politics is religion, and they hold to their un-principled beliefs with equal dedication as religious people hold to their faith.

- Nate


rightwingextremist,

I wholly support Christians having an active participation in political society. They should be encouraged to use their faith as the part of the vocational training and individual formation that brought them to public debate.

However, if a Christian does does not approve of abortion because it is against "God's laws," then that same Christian needs to simply state he/she is against it for fundamental reasons linked to their vision of the moral causeway in society. We will know they are Christian and accept their belief system. However, to say that you are against abortion PURELY from a Christian perspective, to quote God, to quote scripture, to say you love Jesus, and then to wear a pretension of righteousness (!!!) because others do not, . . . well, in this case you are knowingly whacking others with your religion.

One other VERY important point:

1) to be on the RIGHT does not necessarily make you Christian (and get this word out ---> not even necessarily does it most likely make you a practicing Christian nor should anyone assume this)

2) to vote Republican, to even cite yourself as Republican, DOES NOT infer Christianity. Otherwise, that is nothing less than the presumptuous and near-fascist overtake of the Republican Party by Christians.

I am Christian. I am not a Peter in the garden who will disavow Jesus. But at the same time that is an aside when it comes to politics.

I am right-wing and and I do not expect nor do I interpret others on the right to be Christian. If they are, then fine. I thus understand part (or all in some cases) intellectual and moral formations. Thus their politics a little more. But they are not welcome to represent the right purely from a hodge-podge construct of a Christian framework and presume this to be the voice of the right.

Other than this, rightwingextremist, I absolutely agree with you that Christians are torn apart in the press. But then again, maybe they should cool it.

Remember this, our forefathers who wrote our constitution were children of the Enlightenment wherein Christian participation in a secular, logical form of governance (the whole point of the eighteenth century) was done under the auspices of careful nurturing of the state where God was present but not given the overseeing powers He assumed in a monarchical system. i.e. God #1, King/Queen #2, and so on.

[rightwingxtremist]

I wholly support Christians having an active participation in political society. They should be encouraged to use their faith as the part of the vocational training and individual formation that brought them to public debate.

However, if a Christian does does not approve of abortion because it is against "God's laws," then that same Christian needs to simply state he/she is against it for fundamental reasons linked to their vision of the moral causeway in society. We will know they are Christian and accept their belief system. However, to say that you are against abortion PURELY from a Christian perspective, to quote God, to quote scripture, to say you love Jesus, and then to wear a pretension of righteousness (!!!) because others do not, . . . well, in this case you are knowingly whacking others with your religion.

So what? If their view point is inspired by God's law, so be it. The filtering process takes place at the voting booth, and provides the degree of separation that satisfies our Constitution. On the one hand, we can have Judeo-Christian inspired laws that are legitimately passed through Congress, upheld by a Supreme Court, without a single reference to God or Jewish or Christian in it. Or, you can have what some would like to think we have but don't: Judges, Congress people, Presidents, Governors, Motor Vehicle Officers citing scripture or laws that contain specific scriptural references. At either rate, the voting booth is a semi-permeable membrane, and with religion on one side you have representative government, on the other you have true government-sponsored religion.

Christians going to the voting both and succeeding is an example of majority rules, just as secular-humanists going to the voting booths and succeeding is, or even large populations of crystal-ball readers going to the polls after they read their tarot cards.

If that isn't good enough, you will either have to change the minds of religious people, or kill them.

I always try to explain my positions in a manner that a non-Christian can interpret. For example, as far as abortion is concerned, I do not believe that the definition of life should change depending on the situation. On the one hand we have abortion rights activists, and on the other we have pregnant women who have been murdered. If we say it is life, then the abortionists are murderers (yep!). If we say that it is not life, then families have no recourse against murderers who have destroyed the expectation of a beautiful baby, which, if left alone would have been born. There's nothing religious about that.

As far as the whole Christian/Republican link that you have pinned on me, your observation is more a result of interpreting the brevity of my post as such than any sort of statement on my part that would indicate that Republicans are Christians and Christians are Republicans. I have a quite a few Jewish Republican friends, along with some seculars as well.

That being said, how am I supposed to interpret the following?


I don't know what to say about this one, folks. While I decry at every level the filthy overt operatives of Christian evangelical over-enthusiasm for political direction in this country...

Pat Robertson may be a festering turd and wholly uneducated invalid...

God aside (and God should always be placed aside when talking of poltics!!! especially assassinations since I doubt he wants to hear about them), I think the filthy reverand Robertson is saying what a lot of people are thinking.


It just isn't specific enough... I don't back up my view points with "because God says so", even though that would be valid enough for me. Surely I fall into one of the "levels" of "fithy overt operatives of Christian evengelical enthusiasm for political direction". I don't hang on Pat Robertson's words, but surely I might take in interest in what that festering turd has to say because he is a Christian.

It is a pretty damn reliable stereotype that attacks on religion come from the left. It's really just years of observation, thought, and common sense.

- Nate

[JustTheIssues]

Trust me YD the only reason that Christianity is an issue in Robertson's statement is to try to link Bush into the scenario.

The most important reason Robertson's rant is news is not that he is linked to Bush, but because he is a Christian minister who has based his entire public image on a particular brand of conservative (note the small "c") Christianity that condemns any morality that is not his literal reading of the Christian bible as unworthy. His assassination position--in direct contradiction to the sixth commandment of the Christian ten found in Exodus 20--displays an un-Christianity and hypocrisy that has been rightly condemned by the Left and the Right, believers and non-. Had Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or any other self-proclaimed Christian leader on the Left whose political authority is primarily based in his religious position made the same or similar statements, that would be news as well. Robertson's policy proposal isn't receiving condemnation on its merits, but because of who he claims to be.

The second (and secondary) reason this is news does relate to AAK's assertion. Just one week before Robertson's comments, he was a guest on Hannity and Colmes; not as a whack-job, but as a respected leader of Conservative Christians. Had most, or even many, Conservatives distanced themselves from him before this--say when he and Falwell blamed the Attacks of September 11 on homosexuals and feminists or when he essentially prayed for the death of Moderate and Liberal Supreme Court justices--they and the media could easliy dismiss his comments. But mainstream Conservatives of all religious persuasions have given him their voice and must now reap the whirlwind. For those of you like Yankee who wish to discuss the issues on their merits rather than the straw-men of religious beliefs, I would suggest you and your leaders marginalize the Rev. Dr. Robertson and his ilk just as the Democrats have marginalized the Rev. Dr. Jackson.

Sidebar--Robertson's call for Chavez's assassination is not a Christian Fatwa because he doesn't attempt to twist religious text to support his claim. While he has done so in the past, in this instance he just ignores the writings that are inconvenient for his position. For a more equal--and equally appalling--example of conservative Christian extremism, read this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/).

[JustTheIssues]

So what? If their view point is inspired by God's law, so be it. The filtering process takes place at the voting booth, and provides the degree of separation that satisfies our Constitution.

I don't back up my view points with "because God says so", even though that would be valid enough for me.

I cannot attack Christianity because that would be an attack on myself. But, like Yankee, I can criticize a political argument based solely on the Bible, the Quran, the Torrah, the Book of Mormon, or whatever religious text for the reason xtremist cites: we are not a theocracy. Anyone who advocates a political position solely on religious grounds is also advocating for a theocracy. Of course Christians have their political views informed by religious teaching. But using a religious text as an exclusive justification is theocratic and empty to those who do not believe. Our murder laws need no religious justification, though they may have religious inspiration. Let us follow that model.

Xtremist--I'm sure you will take interest in my comments because I am a Christian too. Claims that Christians in the US are being attacked is hyperbole of the most extreme kind. We have had forty-three consecutive Christian presidents (that would be all of them). The vast majority of Congress are self-proclaimed Christians. These trends will continue for the foreseeable future. To say that Christians are being persecuted here is either a gross ignorance of the real persecution of Christians or a calculated lie. To say "the slaughter of Christians is not too far down the road" belittles your argument. Your thoughtful positions about what is "murder" can now ignored because of the ridiculousness of your other rhetoric. Your argument deserves better.

IHL--May I suggest we open a forum for a discussion of the place of religion/Christianity in political discourse as we seem to have strayed from the Robertson flap but started a valuable discussion.

[rightwingxtremist]

I cannot attack Christianity because that would be an attack on myself. But, like Yankee, I can criticize a political argument based solely on the Bible, the Quran, the Torrah, the Book of Mormon, or whatever religious text for the reason xtremist cites: we are not a theocracy. Anyone who advocates a political position solely on religious grounds is also advocating for a theocracy. Of course Christians have their political views informed by religious teaching. But using a religious text as an exclusive justification is theocratic and empty to those who do not believe. Our murder laws need no religious justification, though they may have religious inspiration. Let us follow that model.

And where do you think the model comes from? The air? As I have said before, the theocratic filtering takes place at the voting booth, and voters can be inspired by whatever they like, thoughtful or not. Sean Hannity interviewed a ton of young adults prior to the election this year who were planning on voting - many of them did not even know the name of our Vice President - what is the purpose of supplanting one block of voters who you in your ivory tower deem "thoughtless" for another, the only difference being one is religious and the other not?

Why not equally apply your energy, outrage, and lofty standards for "thoughtful" politics by addressing all "thoughtless" political activities? Why? Because yourself and your liberal buddies are gunning for Christians, out of some form of bigotry.

Stick to your stupidity and I'll stick to mine.



Xtremist--I'm sure you will take interest in my comments because I am a Christian too. Claims that Christians in the US are being attacked is hyperbole of the most extreme kind. We have had forty-three consecutive Christian presidents (that would be all of them). The vast majority of Congress are self-proclaimed Christians. These trends will continue for the foreseeable future. To say that Christians are being persecuted here is either a gross ignorance of the real persecution of Christians or a calculated lie. To say "the slaughter of Christians is not too far down the road" belittles your argument. Your thoughtful positions about what is "murder" can now ignored because of the ridiculousness of your other rhetoric. Your argument deserves better.

Nonsense. Whether or not the sort of prejudice that Christians face in our culture these days fits your narrow mold or not is irrelevant. Whether or not your radar dish is in tune with the cultural backlash against faith or not doesn't wipe out what Christians see and feel about their place in this society, as references to their faith are wiped away from the public square. Such are the seeds for greater expressions of intolerance. The ADL would be up in arms at half of the sort of popular treatment Christians recieve, if that same treatment were to be applied to Jewish people.

My statement concerning the slaughter of Christians is not only based on the eventuality that many Christians believes will occur in the end times, but is already true in other nations, some of which enjoy increasing economic and political ties to our country; namely China. If you don't believe it fine, but I do, and many other people do as well.

Whether or not anything else I say is considered rhetoric to you is also not relevant - just answer the points as they come, and quit looking for things to beat people to death with in order to skate around a position taken that you don't like - such is a liberal tactic.

- Nate