Posted on 08/22/2005 5:43:04 PM PDT by Rebelbase
Yes. Robertson should have been much more careful in his remarks. Speech, particularly when someone has been blessed with places of leadership, has consequences. Robertson is in God's hands.
But you strain mightily at the Pat Robertson speck while swallowing the Chavez demon.
I disagree....he said what thousands think....I had that thought the very same day after watching a report about Chavez and seeing kissing terror supporters that he had invited into his country. Many in our government have the same thought, however, they don't say so publicly.
Robertson, particularly in light of his ministry, should not have spoken the words. I don't find them embarassing, since I also think Chavez is a danger to our lives. However, Roberston did something foolish. Conservative and conservative Christians already are targets for what we believe, it is not wise to make foolish comments that give the enemy the bullets for the gun they have aimed at us.
Ok, so we agree, so why are you disagreeing?
At least he was more artful in his phrasing.
I disagree that his saying it was embarrassing, at least not to my thinking... although ill timed, wrong venue, etc...I agree with what he said...I just think he shouldn't have said it publicly, and in light of what he should be about in his ministry. You are embarrassed. I am not. The BBC was so "embarrassed" by Churchill that they banned him from radio commentary...they feared he would make Hilter mad.
Robertson, so the media says, once said we should bomb the State Department. You and I sitting around talking might say such a thing..we would know that it was sarcasm, a figure of speech. However, you and I would NOT say such a thing in a speech, or in response to a reporter's question. Pat, for some odd reason in his later years, has taken to saying things that in his particular venue, are over the top...and he is paying for it...unfortuantely, conservatives and Christians in general will also pay for it.
Are all you leftists evil or are some of you just stupid?
Are things really that slow in DUmmieville today?
However, let us not forget that men such as Allen Dulles, John Kennedy, Bill Colby, and Henry Kissinger used assassination and other covert activities to overthrow hostile regimes. None of them said that the United States was engaging in such activities and mouthed the usual platitudes about the democratic process and the rule of international law even as they took out such enemies of America as Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile. What real American would deny that what the Cold Warriors did was wrong? Furthermore, what true patriot would deny that Col. North's assistance to the Nicaraguan Contras, even though it was against a Congress dominated by appeasers like Tip O'Neal and outright enemies of America like Ron Dellums, was not a good thing?
I hope that Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bush are as tough in defending American interests as were their Cold War predecessors. Better some covert activities in 2005 than a Caribbean area ground war in 2015.
Come again? Are you sure you're addressing that comment to the correct person and in the correct context?
Even if you want to believe everything in Cornwell's book is a "fraud," what do you do about the other sources, books and contentions on the matter?
ALL lies as well?
"You are speaking from ignorance. Here's one little tidbit you probably didn't read in Cornwell's slander of a dead Pontiff--the Chief Rabbi of Rome during WWII converted to Catholicism after the war. As his baptismal name, he took "Eugenio." Pius XII's name was Eugenio Pacelli."
You're right -- it was "a little tidbit" you provided.
One Roman Rabbi's conversion to Catholicism is trivial compared to events of collaboration that indeed transpired between the Vatican and Hitler.
" Incorrect.
You have made this assertion without a shred of evidence.
In point of fact, attendance at Mass in Italy dropped some 40% in Italy between 1880-1940. During this period, for the first time, millions of children were not even baptized."
"Evidence"?? Try any history book, or book about Italy.
Btw, non-worshipping attendance does not necessarily mean one is no longer Catholic. Or Baptist. Or Jewish.
Joining an anti-Catholic organization like the Communists or Fascists and ceasing all participation in the Church makes you no longer a Catholic.
I don't see how one can join an organization which says that God does not exist, or an organization which says that man's sole responsibility is to the State and still be said to have membership in or allegiance to a Church which requires its members to believe the exact opposite of those two principles.
Any? How about this - cite one serious, scholarly book to support your thesis.
Lol -- what "thesis"??
Ever hear of the words, "Census"? "Statistics"?
Then cite the census report or statistics to support your thesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.