Is Pat Robertson secretly an atheist?

[trotsky]

Jerry Falwell?
George Bush?

What do most Christians here on DU think?

[sui generis]

1. hell yes without the tiniest doubt

Or maybe more accurately, not the same god as most decent christians who believe in god AND goodness.

[Tace]

2. You Beat Me To It...

Oh hell yes. Or a Satanist.

[trotsky]

3. How can you tell he's an atheist?

Because all atheists are bad?

On edit: Or is it because no one who believes in the "right" Christian god can be bad?

[acmejack]

12. Robertson is so contrary to the teachings in the "Book"

The God depicted in the handbook, if you will, of xtianity is absolutely nothing like the pro-assassination, pro-wealth, pro-fraud religion practiced by Robertson. It does not conform to any version of xtianity I am aware of.

[Az]

16. So a Christian is only a Christian if they pefectly represent the belief?

Maybe he is just a really bad Christian. Maybe he beleives in god and Jesus but just doesn't get the right ideas from it.

But instead of considering that you label him atheist. This really does seem to suggest that you consider atheists to be immoral.

[IvotedforKodos]

70. That is completely untrue

Most christians do not perfectly represent the belief at all, we're all unclean and sinners and that is not a perfect representation of what a christian should be, of course, none of us are perfect and god likes us the way we are.

[trotsky]

17. I dunno, there's a lot in that book suggesting that

its god is quite pro- all of those things. Happy is he who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rocks and the keeping of the virgins for yourselves and all that lovely imagery.

That's the funny thing about the bible. It has been written and rewritten and interpreted and re-interpreted so many times, that you can find justification in it for just about anything you want to believe.

[sui generis]

13. eh?

thou putteth words into this atheists mouth, clearly the wrong words.

On Edit, hey Trotsky you were looking for a fight! Admit it, admit it. Put yer dukes up. :P

[trotsky]

15. You're an atheist, yet you think Robertson is one too?

Please explain.

[sui generis]

20. oh this is going to be good

I take back my jocular tone.

Let's start with the obvious. There is no god. If there is no god, then god isn't talking to Robertson.

Robertson is a businessman. If god isn't talking to Robertson and he's telling everyone that god is talking to him, then he's lying. I conclude that he is an atheist, and a liar, and scoundrel, and a crook.

Hope that answered it.

[trotsky]

23. What if Robertson truly believes that god wants him to be rich?

And that the richer he gets, the more proof it is that god likes what he's doing?

And why would Robertson be working to change the laws of this country to favor Christians, if he's really an atheist?

[sui generis]

27. for the same reason that Bill Gates wants to convert everyone

to Microsoft. To corner the market on power AND money.

Bill Gates may not necessarily believe he has the best operating system, or that the operating system speaks to him. He just knows how to use it and its derivatives and attachments to make more money, and if he thought it would make him more money I am sure he wouldn't hesitate to tell Microsoft followers the The Father Lord Microsoft, The Son, and the Baby Zucchini all spoke to him.

I'm not very generous in my thinking about people who look at gigantanormous balance sheets and live in mansions furnished by little old ladies sending the last five dollars of their social security checks.

You appear to be an agnostic on the issue of his faith - believe me I have great cynical faith that he has none, nor do I really care either way.

[Modem Butterfly]

33. By this logic, Bill Gates uses Linux

Or at least Macintosh

[IvotedforKodos]

71. Dude...he's gettin a dell...

Hah...had to.

[Az]

25. Millions of people believe that god talks to them

I can explain this by way of neurological and psychological explanations. But to them the experience is real. We do not have enough evidence to determine if Robertson is decieving or selfdecieving.

[Old Mouse]

87. Yes, I have met and talked with many

Not one I have met was in condition to run a multinational corporation, nor did the voices conveniently tell them to do things that improved their bottom line.

[Az]

88. Thats odd, I have met a few

A company called RCI locally runs its company in what it calls a bible based business model. It has all its employees gather for prayer each day. They advise consulting god on a regular basis. I have debated with the president of the company and he seems to be a quite dedicated believer and is convinced that his communions with god are real.

Bible based companies seem to be a growing focus on the part of the religious right. It of course increases the exclusionary aspect of our society.

A friend recently was forced into resigning from her job because the president of her company kept calling for group prayer sessions. Because she would not attend them pressure began accumulating on her and she quickly was shunted down the company totem poll. It got so bad she could no longer do her job properly without ridicule.

So yes I believe that someone can believe they are conversing with god and look at the bottom line at the same time. Remember I do not believe even those who are good and decent are truly talking to god. I believe they are conversing with their own inner voice. I beleive Robertson converses with his own inner voice and it tells him what he wants to hear. And he believes it is god.

Now you can say he is deluded and is only listening to himself and thus is not truly a Christian. But then you would be arguing an atheistic position.

As a friend of mine once suggested:

All of us are atheists. Some of us just believe in fewer gods than others. - Stephen F Roberts

[trotsky]

90. Amway

The original bible-based business.

[Old Mouse]

91. No, I don't say Robertson is talking to an inner self

The inner discussion you refer to at your friend's most unpleasant experience is not two-way dialog, that is terminology for a meditative experience for personal clarity.

Quite different from auditory hallucination.

Robertson knows quite well he does not talk to god.

[Az]

93. I have no idea how you know that

I am pretty sure you will get a healthy argument from Mr Robertson himself. I have given ample examples of individuals that have believed in gods an still committed horrible acts. Simply put I see nothing to sufficiently suggest that Robertson does not believe in god from the evidence you have provided. Insisting that he does not believe in god does not make it so.

We have established that even in the context of the bible it is possible to believe in god and still be evil. We have shown that people can simultaneously hold to opposing ideas. We have shown that many people believe they talk to god and can still behave in unethical ways.

I would welcome any evidence that directly shows that he does not believe in some sort of god. But I have yet to see it. I certainly see proclomations that he does not follow some avowed edicts from various religions. But then there are more religions in the world than we can shake a stick at. Delusional and egomaniacal can still believe in god.

[Old Mouse]

95. I can say with certainty

Robertson does not have faith.

Your conclusions on bible text stretch too far and do not hold. They are out of context. As I said, by the book those people acted with no free will. God hardened the heart. Jesus told judas to do it. According to faith, there was no possibility of choice, so these are not instances of people acting evil while still believing in god.

Of course there are people with and without faith who commit horrible acts. That point is irrelevant. All people transgress their personal morality one time or another,t is impossible to live a blameless life... (That's why repentance is built into religious systems.) This particular point serves no point.

[CarbonDate]

101. No, you can't.

Not unless you're a mind reader.

You're in some serious denial here, Old Mouse. Either that or cognitive dissonance. All indications are that Pat Robertson is a Christian and believes that God talks to him. Your assertions to the contrary bear no credibility.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Hmmmm. Unless, of course, Old Mouse IS god.

I mean, he's so sure of this, and the only way he could know is if he knows exactly what's in Robertson's mind and heart.

And no mere mortal could know that.

Could they?

[CarbonDate]

108. Old Mouse is clearly an atheist.

He judges other Christians' faith and claims knowledge he does not possess despite the fact that the Bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." That's not how a Christian behaves, so he is clearly not a real Christian. Moreover, since he is not a real Christian and says he is, he is clearly an atheist.

Plus, he posts on the Atheists and Agnostics forum! What more proof do we need?

[Old Mouse]

84. I hadn't even thought of that proof...

well done.

[beam me up scottie]

85. "proof"

Do I need to define that word for you?

You seem to require definitions, is why I ask.

[Az]

4. A better question

What do they think they are. Do they think they worship God/Jesus? Or are they consciously atheist and perverting the teaching?

Love and conviction can do strange things. If you believe in an immortal soul and damnation then this mortal coil looks different to you than it does to others. Its just a temporary existance. Your soul is forever.

Add to the mix the notion of life after death and you have a potentially lethal combination. This life is just secondary to all things considering. What wouldn't you do to save someone's immortal soul? History has shown us torture is not out of the question in the name of love for the soul.

We cannot know how a person's mind has twisted a particular belief. Pat Robertson may very well believe that he is doing God's work. You may believe that he stands for everything detestable.

[beam me up scottie]

5. The religious bigotry in this forum is breathtaking.

These intolerant MORANS belong at freeperville.

I'm learning a lot more about my fellow DUers than I ever wanted to.

And we're supposed to be educated and enlightened?

feh

[daninthemoon]

7. Which intolerant "morans"?

[beam me up scottie]

19. The ones who say those assholes aren't christians but atheists.

The fucking NERVE.
The fucking IGNORANCE.
The fucking religious BIGOTRY.

revolting

[Modem Butterfly]

22. BMUS check your PMs

[trotsky]

10. Tell me about it.

I wanted to gauge just how bad it is. Let's get it out on the open, adn deal with it. I'm tired of being thought of as evil simply because I don't happen to believe in someone's god.

[beam me up scottie]

24. SAVE

these threads!
They will be given the "Nietzsche" treatment in a few minutes and I want a record.
I'm at work or I would.


No, atheists aren't shit on by dems, are they?
We're TOTALLY equal to the good and pure christians.

[sui generis]

32. BMUS stop

edited for civility and to change this to first person voice

Please. I'm not knocking religious practice or faith. I'm just stating our opinions, and at least in my case it doesn't mean that I'm a "bigot" or hate christians.

Do you hate atheists? Do you get my point?

I don't think we should call people bigots - it means a whole lotta worse things than you intend and it's hurtful. How would you like to be called a bigot, knowing you're not?

[beam me up scottie]

63. Sui, I AM an atheist.

And you're not a bigot.
Please read my response to you below.

[physioex]

11. I don't think so.....

How many athetists have fought on crusades? How many go on missionaries and convert people? No the religious bigotry clearly belongs with the likes of Pat "Patwah" Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and Randall Terry.

[trotsky]

14. Oh, but you see,

I was told on another thread that those gentlemen are all atheists. I just wanted to find out if lots of Christians felt that way, or if it was just one bigoted individual.

[physioex]

18. I really don't know what they believe......

And in all honestly what does it matter? The point that we have to make is that they are using religion to furthur their political agenda.

[trotsky]

21. Another poster was quite certain they are atheists.

I just want to know if this is a common belief among DU Christians or not.

[beam me up scottie]

28. It matters.

The posters are saying that only good people are christians.
If christians are bad, then they're atheists.
THEy've done it with all of the evil christians throughout history.

Christian does NOT = good person

Bad person does NOT = atheist

[Az]

35. Here is the issue

Atheism is a permissible prejudice in our society. It is perfectly acceptable to say that people that do not believe in god are immoral in our society. Not a day goes by when an evangelyst doesn't castigate us for our very existance.

The comments about Robertson and others being atheist simply perpetuates this notion. It suggests that no Christian could possibly do anything so evil. Only atheists could be so corrupt. That is very clearly prejudice.

Because the statements are made by individuals we believe to be our allies and worse no one stands up to deny but our fellow atheists, we become very angry and feel very disconnected from our fellow Democrats and liberals. The very people we believe are fighting on the same side as us and who we have been fighting for all along.

It is in this day and age unacceptable to slander a black person without incurring the wrath of society. Call a woman a bitch or tell her that her place is in the home and a chorus of voices rise up to defend them. Gays are demanding their place in society and people are coming to their defense when the recalcitrant religious right tries to thwart them. But no one rises to our defense in the face of the daily slander and oppression that oozes from conservative religious pulpets and airwaves.

So some feel they have to defend themself. And as a result some treat believers the way they feel they have been treated. And civility collapses. But they will not be stepped on any longer. They will not back down.

[trotsky]

37. If I could nominate just one post for everyone to read,

it would be this one, Az. Thank you.

[physioex]

38. I agree with you there....

And I have no problems with atheists. I am an agnostic myself. People like Pat Robertson are nothing more than the American Tali-ban, and we need to go on the offensive rather than sit back and passively be called "immoral"......

[Jim Bob]

53. Nicely put, Az, but

no one stands up to deny but our fellow atheists

Don't forget me. I denied. In fact, I think it is obvious that Fallwell, Robertson, Bush, etc. are Christians. We may not agree with their actions, but they certainly profess to be Christians. If we judge them to be failing to live out their lives in accordance with our interpretation of the Scriptures, that does not mean that they are not Christian believers. Who among us has not sinned? Let him cast the first stone. All Christians (as well as all believers of other faiths and all non-believers) have sinned. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that someone is not a Christian merely by observing that they have sinned.

So far, so good, right?

Now I am going to say something that is going to bring on an avalanche of flames from your Atheist compatriots. But keep in mind, this is just my opinion. I don't think that the type of "persecution" that Atheists complain about in modern-day America is real religious persecution.

Real religious persecution is being tortured to death because you refuse to renounce your belief in your deity. This happened to thousands of Christians in the days of the Roman Empire.

Real religious persecution is being prohibited from worshipping, even in your own home. This is happening in Saudi Arabia right now.

Real religious persecution is having your entire village, including women and children, slaughtered because of your religious beliefs. This is happening right now in Sudan.

Real religious persecution is being sent to the gas chamber because of your religion. This happened a short 60 years ago in Germany and Poland.

Real religious persecution is being subjected to abuse or even torture in prison because you refuse to renounce your deity. This apparently occurred at Abu Ghraib in 2003.

Atheists in 2005 America are not subjected to anything like that.

Furthermore, because Atheists do not believe in the existence of any deity, it is hard to imagine that Atheists could ever be subjected to the same level of religious persecution that has been inflicted on believers.

Even if you were to assume for purposes of argument, that an Atheist were taken to Abu Ghraib and told that if he does not renounce Atheism, he will be tortured, it would not be the same as telling a Muslim that he must renounce Allah or be tortured, or telling a Christian that he must renounce Jesus or be tortured. The difference is that the Atheist does not believe in any deity, so he could say whatever the torturers wanted, and suffer no angst at the religious repercussions of doing so. The Muslim or the Christian would have to endure the torture, and would suffer the added mental anguish of knowing that they could stop the physical torture just by saying a few words. The Atheist would have no such quandary. The Atheist could just say what they want him to say and stop the torture.

Thus, as I see it, Atheists are far less vulnerable to religious persecution than believers in any deity.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, how many Atheists have been put to death for their Atheist beliefs in the last 100 years? How does that number compare to the number of Theists that have been killed on account of their religious beliefs?

All of the above leads me to conclude that Atheists' cry of "persecution" rings hollow.

[Az]

54. Real

First let me address my mistatement. My intent was to show that in the larger court of public opinion there is no one rising to our defense. Its simply not socially accepted in a wide enough arena as yet. There are numerous individuals that are believers and are on the wall defending it along side us. We are not alone. But the society still considers us second class citizens.

Real does not mean lethal. Real does not mean torture. It means actual.

The advances of our society have increasingly made it difficult to commit such types of persecution and bigotry. It doesn't mean that other forms of oppression do not exist. It doesn't make those forms of oppression less real.

I can personally relate direct forms of oppression done to my person and my property due to my beliefs. My atheist friends can relate even more. And yes they do include physical violence and threats of death. It is real. We are fortunate it is not as bad as some groups have had it. But then it is only recent social climate that has enabled us to even begin to express ourselves. In the days when those other forms of oppression were prevalent a smart atheist kept his mouth shut or they would surely burn.

[Tafiti]

67. One point here.

"Who among us has not sinned? Let him cast the first stone. All Christians (as well as all believers of other faiths and all non-believers) have sinned. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that someone is not a Christian merely by observing that they have sinned.

So far, so good, right?"

Not quite - just wanted to point something out here. I'm not castigating you, I'm just trying to open your eyes to something you may not have seen before. The statement I highlighted in bold illustrates something that has been argued back and forth between atheists and theists, but they are usually hypothetical in nature, and therefore not as useful. I'm not arguing the point you're trying to make, I'm addressing only the bold part.

To an atheist, this statement says this: "You are an atheist, therefore you are a sinner." OK, that's well understood. (Bear in mind I do recognize that you call yourself, and in fact all of humanity "sinners"). The rub here is that to an atheist, this means nothing at all. For a Christian like yourself, the concept of "sin" is very real, and has very real consequences. But to an atheist, this concept doesn't exist. The whole notion of "sin" is meaningless, in that it "separates one from God." Obviously, this has no bearing on an atheist's religious purview.

Now, atheists also well know what mental and emotional responses that term carries with it, especially with Christians, and here's my point: As a Christian, you believe that your sins are forgiven, because you (I presume) have asked Jesus to forgive your sins. Obviously, this type of confession lifts a burden of guilt from you, and you feel as though (at least momentarily) you are a better person. Conversely, it is obvious that an atheist does not "repent" in any way for "sin". Why? Not only because we do not believe in a god, but because we believe that sin isn't real. (Generally, we live by a humanistic ethical and moral code, and do not need any religious doctrine to tell us how to act.)

What this means is that, perhaps only subconsciously, you see an atheist as an unrepentent, uncompunctious person - a perpetual sinner. We are not, nor ever have been, "forgiven" for any unseemly acts we may have engaged in. We do not have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". I believe this is what can lend itself to a sense of moral superiority, if only barely recognizable.

What I'm saying is: you see us through your own religious viewpoint - through sin-colored glasses, if you will. As in: As atheists, we are deceived, we are in need of saving, we have willfully rejected God, we are unclean from unrepentent sin, etc. etc. I don't think this can be denied. What effect this has on your dealings with atheists on this board I cannot say. But I think the statement I highlighted supports my assertion. I'm not saying it's definitely true, just offering it up as food for thought so that you might better understand where we're coming from.

BTW, my entire family is evangelical Christians, my dad and my uncle used to be ministers, two of my uncles still are, and I was once a Christian as well. I write this keeping in mind my own experiences and mindsets as a Christian, and also what I've experienced as a non-believer. This doesn't necessarily relate to you personally in any way, I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from.

[Old Mouse]

98. Very well put

I didn't want to go there, but I'm glad you did.

[Old Mouse]

86. Oh, Az...

You know that is not the premise of the original statement.

There is no suggestion that Christians can not perpetrate evil, its simply that Robertson, Falwell, and others are not men of faith. Unfortunately that makes them by default, atheist.

It does not make anyone claim they subscribe to or represent your philosophy.

To make a convoluted cause of theistic persecution out of the fact that Roberson is not a man of faith is paranoia.

[Az]

89. Cain slew Abel and he knew of God

Judas betrayed Jesus and he believed in God.

You cannot judge whether a person believes in god or not by their morality. A person can believe in god and be angry or hateful towards him/her/it. That still makes them a theist.

On Edit: This issue goes directly to why insisting he is an atheist is an example of predjudice. Simply because he does not follow the teachings as you expect them to does not indicate that he does not believe he is following them. Nor does it indicate that he does not simply hate god. Hating god takes belief in god.

[Old Mouse]

92. Judas had to..

...it was not a matter of his choice. Just as the Pharaoh had to hold the Israelites in bondage. These are not instances, by the book, of free will. These are moments God forced human action, by the book.

You cannot claim anyone who is without faith represents the public moral opinion of atheism. Its a paranoid position.

Unfortunately, anyone without faith is an atheist, no matter how many shades or complexities of this lack of theism there may be, and robertson is without faith. That in no way means the actions he takes are the actions of atheism. (The original point was that his actions do not represent Christianity, BTW) To infer that is to stretch logic to the breaking point:

Az has legs (an assumption on my part)
This chardonnay has legs
therefore Az is this chardonnay

[Az]

94. Faith vs Belief that there is a god

Faith and belief in god are not the same thing. Faith can be many things to different people. I would argue that faith is an internal mental construct that individuals maintain as a model of what they have learned they are supposed to believe.

Faith implies a desire to follow one's religious beliefs. Adherance to the teachings. Belief in god is utterly independent of this. It can be as simple as a belief in a creator that set everything in motion and has not been involved since to the belief of a god that is involved in our day to day life.

It may very well be that Robertson has no faith in the beliefs he professes. This in no way indicates that he has no belief in some form of god.

[Old Mouse]

96. Faith is believing without proof

If you dislike the definition as it conflicts with your interpretation of religion, we can use another.

To be more specific: Robertson is not Christian.

[Az]

97. Again we have the trouble of a massively diverse definition

It is difficult to say one way or the other. First you have the trouble of not knowing the man's mind. Second there is the problem that you nor anyone else knows the true face of Christianity. There are a lot of good ideas out there about what it may be. But there is no one around to actually comfirm these views.

There are countless people that believe Robertson is a good Christian. I can only say from my view that I believe he is a bad example for Christianity.

[BillE]

66. Guys like Robertson

may believe that god wants them to use all that money and the political process to spread his word. He may believe god wants him to enforce his laws (think ten commandments) through the government. He may think god gave America to the Christians to do his "good" works. Why are these not reasonable assumptions, since that is basically what he is telling us. Instead you assume he is atheist, because only atheist can be that evil.

Here's a good quote:
Blaise Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

[physioex]

74. Hold on now.....

I never said Pat Robertson was an "atheist. I said I don't know what they believe and neither do you. No know one really knows what another thinks deep inside, that is just an irrefutable fact.

That aside I don't agree with what you said. Robertson is an savy business man, look at the shady dealings he has had with his diamond mines in Africa. From what I have read the man is never seen reading a Bible but rather the Wall Street Journal. So I think he is more manipulative businessman than a true religious believer in the scriptures.

[trotsky]

75. The bible is open to wide interpretation.

Slavery, genocide, rape, murder - all can find support in the bible. That's the point - just because someone is doing bad things doesn't mean they can't be a Christian.

[physioex]

76. Well I can agree with that....

It's really no different than what the Mullahs are doing in Saudi Arabia......

[trotsky]

78. Radical clerics

unfortunately do most of the speaking in a lot of religions today.

[sui generis]

30. wait a second

If you say, "there is a god and everyone who says there isn't one is a religious bigot" that's not any less bigoted than me saying there isn't a god.

Bigotry has nothing to do with these statements.

Some of us believe, and some don't. Don't take it personally. At least, I don't.

[daninthemoon]

6. Maybe cynical atheists who hijack religion to foment terror. Maybe

Anti-Christs. They certainly lead sheep astray. They do not advance Christianity as Christ taught it.

[Az]

8. Thats been the problem throughout history

There is no one alive that was there to hear what Jesus taught. His suposed words have been translated and editted for millenia. The clergy kept the actual text to themself for centuries. Each particular denomination taking its own particular view of it. Even the words themself contain countless contradictions.

So just what is it that Jesus taught? There are some good things in that book. But there are some horrible things too. The best a person can do is follow the truth as they believe it to be. And some people happen to believe that the interpretations of Pat Robertson are the right ones. And they call themself Christian.

[trotsky]

9. How do you know how Christ taught it?

How do you know they don't consider themselves to be TRUE Christians?

[catbert836]

45. I think what he meant was

Jesus' words in the Gospel. "Turn the other cheek", "Love thy enemy", and all that great stuff.

[trotsky]

47. Certainly not the parts about

coming to bring not peace but a sword, and all that not-so-great stuff.

[catbert836]

49. What the sword meant

Many believe it wasn't a literal sword, but a metaphorical one of truth and the Holy Spirit. Or, its possible that the author of Matthew could have put this in as propaganda to the early Christians, to fight against the heathen.
Peace

[trotsky]

50. Key words: "many believe"

Many don't. Because it's impossible to get a consensus on what the bible says, people can read pretty much what they want into it and you can't truly say they're wrong.

[catbert836]

52. You got me there.

It's ridiculous how many different interpretations there are of the Bible. Seriously.
Disclaimer: not a Christian

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

31. Robertson, Falwell, & Bush don't belittle people of different viewpoints?

What ARE you saying?

I understand your attempt at tongue-in-cheek criticism, but it is you that have repeatedly demonstrated you support goals that are not part of the Democratic platform. You say you love atheists but you bash us every chance you get. I hope you can get this hatred out of your system and have a real dialog.

[Jim Bob]

36. As far as I can tell,

The Democratic Party platform is silent as to issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the teaching of Intelligent Design in school, or any of the other issues we have been discussing. It is neither for nor against. If you contend otherwise, please point out where in the platform it says that my views are anathema.

Here http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf is the platform for your easy reference.

[trotsky]

40. The Democratic Party platform is silent, of course,

because Democrats traditionally don't WANT to force the pledge on everyone, or force science teachers to teach religion disguised as "science."

No, I'm sorry, those goals are part of a different party's platform.

[Az]

41. It comes from the Dems support of the Constitution

1st part of the 1st ammendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That is part of the Democratic platform. It is it's foundation. Its the very first brick.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Who can know the heart of a man?

Using the term 'man' loosely.

Atheist or no, he is certainly a sociopath.

EDIT:
I interjected my comment unasked for, as you sought christians' opinions, and I am not of that number.

Sorry bout that.

[cloud_chaser1]

34. As a Jew, allow me to say this.......

I dont know whether Falwell, Robertson and Bush are Atheists, but I am fairtly sure that God stopped beliving in them years ago.

[unhappycamper]

39. Here's a picture of their god:

http://www.dekorraproducts.com.nyud.net:8090/Images/money-stackLrg.jpg

[BiggJawn]

42. Ain't THAT the truth!

You remember that movie "Leap of Faith" with Steve martin?

Funny comedy, right?

Yeah, it was a DOCUMENTARY!

I WORKED for people like that!

[sui generis]

43. I am so confused

I don't even know what that fight was about.

We all think what we think - an atheist stating his or her conclusions is no more or less bigoted than a non-atheist declaming his or her faith. Why the word "FREEPER" got used here at all should be really embarrassing to the people who used it.

The term "bigot" should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this conversation, or else some people have no idea what real bigotry is.

I'm going home now. Somebody pm me the body count later.

[trotsky]

46. A certain poster made the claim on another thread that

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and * were all atheists.

I started this thread because I wanted to know how many DU Christians agreed with that statement.

Because I think that to automatically assume someone who is bad is also an atheist is prejudice.

Don't you?

[sui generis]

58. my faith has been restored

so to speak

I thought they were talking about me. For once I'm glad it's not all about me me me! (sound of sui mocking self)

:blush:

I guess context is everything - I didn't see the other thread but it all makes a little more sense now.

[beam me up scottie]

59. No, Sui, I know you're not.

Others are.

I will never understand why that type of ignorance is allowed to flourish amongst liberals.

We don't listen to what the reichwing about anything else, not about gays, not about blacks, not about Arabs.

So why do people believe what they say about atheists?

[catbert836]

44. Probably not.

I'm not saying that absolutely he's a theist, but based on his actions in support of his faith, I think he does believe, however twisted his beliefs are. I'm sure that there are plenty of people out their who are, for laxk of a better term, "closet" athiests, and for whatever reason, they just keep pretending. Some do it to further their power, and I'm sure a lot of the Republican crowd is doing that. But I think that is Robertson, Falwell, et al were athiests as well, they would have gone into electoral politics, because that's just naturally where exteremely power-hungry people go.

[onager]

48. Robertson DID go into electoral politics

He ran for President in 1988, after a surprising show of power in the Iowa GOP caucuses.

Oh, and one of his campaign ads used a picture of JFK. The caption said something like: "This man was a victim of religious bigotry."
Then, over a picture of Pat: "So is this man."

I got to say, this thread and its Evil Twin have been a real eye-opener.

I'm amazed that so many DU'ers are trying to claim, apparently seriously, that these infamous God-botherers are all atheists.

Something tells me that, about fifty years ago, these "liberal" Democrats would have been denouncing us atheists as "Communists" and flocking into the tent of Joe McCarthy.

[catbert836]

51. What I meant

He would probably be a major power-broker in the GOP if he was just into power. The point is, it's very hard for someone to act as if they have faith to a Robertson degree and be faking it all. But I guess I wouldn't put it past him. I already admitted the possiblity he's and atheist in disguise.
Yeah, I'm amazed, too. People just try to disassociate themselves from what they don't like in their religion. It's they same thing that the fundies have done, to the extent that the media believes there is only ONE version of Christianity, namely theirs.

[onager]

57. Pat is a major power broker in the GOP, too.

I'm not really trying to be argumentative or a wiseass here. A lot of people think Robertson is just a clown who does his Praise-Jebus TV show every week and occasionally says outrageous crap for the media.

However, he wields ENORMOUS power in the GOP and has for several decades. He formed the Christian Coalition by using the mailing database from his failed presidential campaign.

The CC is not, on the surface, as powerful as it was when the truly loathsome Ralph Reed was running it. But it's still a major player among D.C. lobbying groups.

Robertson was also a major force in forming the secretive, theocratic Council for National Policy in 1981.

As Mark Crispin Miller likes to say: the CNP is made up of people who really run the GOP, but not the people you see on the TV news every night:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy

[Voltaire99]

55. Nah, a prototypical Christian. Just not the nicey-nicey sort.

In spite of the loud protestations of those who think their touchy-feely take on Christianity is the "true" version, Robertson belongs to a firm if repellent tradition in the faith.

His reprobate worldview is pre-modern, even scarily medieval, but that hardly invalidates its Christian identity. The hellfire of the Old Testament as incarnated in fundamentalism is an inconvenient problem for modern Christians, who prefer to skip ahead to the Spielbergian passages. It's akin to, say, Bill Clinton's Monica problem: God, too, on closer examination, turns out to be a dick. ;-)

Robertson's as Christian as the day is long. The only pity is that he doesn't emulate his saviour more closely; dude would look good up on a cross.

[More Than A Feeling]

56. They say they are Christian. I take them at their word.

I'm not into the "they're not REAL Christians" game. What they are is bad Christians.

[trotsky]

65. Thanks, Heaven and Earth.

I appreciate hearing your opinion.

[Zhade]

77. Thank you for your honesty.

NT!

[Taxloss]

60. Wow.

Just wow.

[Az]

61. Hi

How ya doing.

:hi:

[Taxloss]

62. I'm OK. This thread is an eye-opener, I can tell you.

The entire "not real Xians" talking point has clearly metastasized into something altogether more malignant.

[Az]

64. Just keep in mind

That like the real world the voices here do not represent the entirety of the beliefs. The heat here has pretty much driven away all but the most brave or tenacious. Such discourse is not to the taste of most.

I allow each person to speak only for themself. No one speaks for the entirety of their belief system. Even if they are Pope.

[arwalden]

68. Heh-heh-heh!

"...Even if they are the Pope."

:thumbsup: :spray:

[IvotedforKodos]

69. I think...

Time would be better not worrying about secret "what if" questions.

[Politically_Wrong]

72. What if...

I had wings...I would be able to fly...into the sky...and sing that "Magic Carpet" ride song from Aladdin...yep

[trotsky]

73. What's the secret "what if" question?

I just wanted to see if the religious believers in this forum agreed with an assessment made by another poster.

[Dorian Gray]

79. I certainly wouldn't call them athiests.

I couldn't begin to judge what their true religion is, but I suspect that they worship "Mammon." (Materialistic goods.)

I will take one for the team and call them what I think that they are. Very misguided Christians.

[Dervill Crow]

80. Atheists are much nicer people than Robertson, et al.

Generally speaking, atheists/agnostics/pagans are just as well behaved morally speaking as Christians, maybe more so because they don't rely on Jesus to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and wash the consequences of their sins away.

I get so annoyed that so many people think that Christians are good and atheists are bad. Robertson and Falwell and Bush would be evil people no matter what their religion.

[really annoyed]

81. Pat Worships One Thing.....

The Almighty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Same goes for the other two.

[nemo137]

109. Mammonists

They are cultists of the god of greed, but they can't just say that, because no one wants to send money to a preacher of that god, so they lie, and claim to follow the Christ.

[trotsky]

110. Some people sincerely believe

that they wouldn't be making so much money if Jesus didn't approve of what they are doing. So it may not be as clear-cut as you think.

[really annoyed]

112. True

I was just being a smart-ass. :evilgrin:

[nemo137]

116. I know, my father is one of them

Oddly enough, he's barely employed, but is convinced that God will bless him.

I think that blab and grab theology is different than the pure, undifferntiated worship of Mammon we see from Roberston, et al, though.

[Old Mouse]

82. I find it interesting

that certain atheists change the definition of what it is to be atheist whenever it suits their purpose of argument.

Sometimes I am told atheism is a personal lack of belief, but then sometimes I am told it is a movement where any discussion of an individual's lack of belief is considered as an attack on the group as a whole.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Why are you so hung up on labels?

Are we allowed to deviate from your interpretation?

Do all christians define themselves the same way?

Are you trying to stereotype atheists?

Perhaps if you'd stop trying to fit us into your people boxes, you could get past this and learn to appreciate each person as an individual.

[really annoyed]

111. self-delete

[Josephine]

99. Of course not

What a silly thing to say.

[beam me up scottie]

100. You would think so, wouldn't you?

But it seems that some christians insist that bad people cannot be christian and must therefore be atheists.

You've heard the familiar "He (insert bad person's name here) is not a REAL christian".

The inference being that only good people can be christians, bad people are something else.

I've always found it disingenuous and insulting, not to mention elitist.

Christians are not morally superior.

Bad people can be, and are, christian.

[Josephine]

105. My sister is a lesbian

When she told me, I was shocked, but she's still my sister and I still love her. When she told our dad, he was pretty upset for a while but he's gotten over it. When she told our mom, our mom just laughed at her and said, "No you're not,"

My sister has been "out" for three years now and is getting "married" to another woman this June, and mom still says that she's not really a lesbian.

Maybe it's not the same thing as saying someone else isn't a real Christian, but it just goes to show that some people just don't know how to accept other people.

What the heck is that thing in your post anyway?

[Az]

107. Its Hello Cthulhu

A combination of the cutest thing on earth and the most evil thing in the universe.

Its also my favorite Teeshirt:

[Beaver Tail]

103. He Believes that he Believes

Deep down inside he is not a believer; he is truly a corporatist and capitalist with his own self-interests at heart. His beliefs and practices are contrary to Christianity just like many other religious leaders.

IMHO he has himself convinced through his own internal lies that he is a man of God.

[trotsky]

104. He might just feel that the ends justify the means.

Early Christian leaders felt that it was OK to lie if it meant you could save more souls by doing so.

In that case, amassing a fortune is good because:

1) It increases his broadcasting company's ability to reach more souls.

2) God wouldn't be rewarding him if he were doing bad things, right?

It's possible for Robertson to be a Christian. He might not be YOUR kind of Christian, but he is one nonetheless. You have absolutely no way of knowing what he thinks "deep down inside" unless you can read minds.

[Az]

106. Its not a question of if he believes in the right god

Keep in mind atheists do not believe there is a god. Thus to our view no one believes in the right god. That doesn't mean everyone is an atheist.

If a person believes they believe in god then no matter how twisted and corrupt that god or belief may be it is still a theistic belief.

[DrDoubleplusgood]

113. I suspect....

I suspect MOST or nearly all public figures and also many important people behind the scenes are closet atheists or agnostics of the snotty, unethical kind that believe religion is necessary to control OTHER people. Read Machiavelli. It all seems very convenient.

[Az]

114. I had to write this response twice

The first time I don't think my words would have been taken kindly by many here.

You pretty much make the point of this argument here. You are predjudiced against atheists. You cannot imagine that someone that believes in god can be immoral or have a different understanding of morallity than you do. So you naturally assume they must be an atheist.

Thank you for proving a point.


Incidently Machiabelli was a theist.

God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us. - Niccolo Machiavelli

[DrDoubleplusgood]

117. Hi AZ

I am actually an atheist myself. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My point was this-Most decisionmakers including some Religious Right muckity-mucks are highly educated. Educated people tend to be atheists, agnostics, or milque toast theological liberals. THerfore, I suspect that when movers and shakers use religion, it is insincere most of the time. Does anyone really but that GWB is a bornagainer? He's an inarticulate sociopath, not a fool. That was a Karl Rove trick. And, um, why beleive Machi when he says he's a theist?

[Az]

118. Sociopaths can believe in gods too

That is the crux of the issue here. There seems to be this assumption that those that play the religion card are just opportunistic atheists. There is nothing to indicate that these people that claim to believe in god do not honestly believe in god. Belief in god and immorality can go hand in hand.

[trotsky]

115. And I suspect...

that there are far too many hateful religious bigots in the world. Some of them even post at DU.