Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?

[Rich]

>> ... either active or fallen away. <<

Most Catholics are both.

 

[Plane]

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." The 700 Club, 1/18/95

This hasn't happened?

It seems to me that there are probly a lot more homosexuls that don't need to act out , but the ones that do , do a good job of attracting attention.

The Pat Robertson impression is made from the information availible to him , includeing the incidents when homosexuals were purposely confrontational.



http://thesisters.org/
http://www.actupny.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence


http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008411.php

http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/10/catholic-archbi.html

[fatman]

Give me a break plane, you and Robertson are as bad as the main stream media you guys are always bitching about.  You take the worst out of one group and hold them up as an example of the mass.  That'd be like me saying that since you're conservative and don't favor gay marriage, you must be like those Phelps wack jobs that protest funerals.  Got your sign? (That is sarcasm also Plane, I'm not trying to attack you personally, just using an example).

Did you check out any of the other quotes attributed to Robertson?

Sheesh

[Plane]

That'd be like me saying that since you're conservative and don't favor gay marriage, you must be like those Phelps wack jobs that protest funerals. 

That is a pretty strong denunciation of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and act up.

[Michael Tee]

It's a tactic I've noticed has worked for conservatives, though.  They point out the craziest of all their opponents and try to portray them as representative of the movement.  They did it to the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s, they do it to the gay-marriage issue and they do it in any Middle East issue, where they portray anyone who resists Amerikkkan or Zionist aggression and/or imperialism as some woman-hating 14th-Century suicide bomber who's preparing a massive genocide in order to bring back the Caliphate. 

In case anyone wants to comment that my putting three Ks into "Amerikkka" is really no different, I would say it's just a modest little effort to fight fire with fire, rhetorically speaking.

[Plane]

It's a tactic I've noticed has worked for conservatives, though.  They point out the craziest of all their opponents and try to portray them as representative of the movement.  They did it to the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s, they do it to the gay-marriage issue and they do it in any Middle East issue, where they portray anyone who resists Amerikkkan or Zionist aggression and/or imperialism as some woman-hating 14th-Century suicide bomber who's preparing a massive genocide in order to bring back the Caliphate. 

In case anyone wants to comment that my putting three Ks into "Amerikkka" is really no different, I would say it's just a modest little effort to fight fire with fire, rhetorically speaking.

Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?

[Michael Tee]

<<Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?>>

No, only those discussions where someone wants to demonize all Muslims by quoting from their craziest religious leaders.  I think Pat Robertson makes a nice counter-weight, don't you?

[fatman]

That is a pretty strong denunciation of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and act up.

And?  This may come as a surprise, but I don't agree with the strategies of most gay rights groups.  Too many let their sexuality define them and play to a stereotype rather than being who they are.  Disrupting a church service isn't helping the cause, it's just getting your name in the paper.

[fatman]

Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?

Who introduced Pat Robertson to this discussion?

[sirs]

<<Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?>>

No, only those discussions where someone wants to demonize all Muslims by quoting from their craziest religious leaders. 

and the list of who does that is...........who again?  But at least you're conceding it's merely a tactic of bringing Roberston into a discussion, to hyperbolically demonize all Christians.  That was quite big of you to advance such a confession

[sirs]

Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?

Who introduced Pat Robertson to this discussion?

That'd be me, and unlike what the left does when they bring him in, I brought him in to highlight the blatant double standard when it comes to Democrats who have associated with pretty "far out" spiritual leaders, but get not a whiff of criticism or condemnation from the left or MSM, the way anyone associated with Robertson or Bob Jones gets

[fatman]

I know you brought in Robertson, and I understand why you did it.  I was trying to refute Plane's insinuation that the left always brings in Robertson, that's all.

Most people on either the left or the right are to complicated to fall under labels or blanket statements.  I try not to make them toward other people, and I don't like it when they're applied to me.  There are some on the left I can't stand, Ted Kennedy for one.  The group that Plane brought up, the SoPI for another.  The ACLU goes to far (in my opinion obviously) at times.  I really am not at all a fan of moveon.org. We're all hypocrites in our own way, but it doesn't mean that we should stop trying to be.  There are people in both parties and ideologies that I like and admire, but as you can tell, Robertson definitely isn't one of them.

[Michael Tee]

<<But at least you're conceding it's merely a tactic of bringing Roberston into a discussion, to hyperbolically demonize all Christians.  That was quite big of you to advance such a confession>>

Well, I can speak for myself on that issue.  I brought Robertson into the discussion as a clear-cut demonstration of the hypocrisy of the Amerikkkan fascist movement, who think they can demnize all Muslims, or those who oppose Amerikkkan fascism, racism and imperialism, by quoting their craziest religious leaders, not realizing that the same tactic would work equally well in reverse.

[Plane]

<<But at least you're conceding it's merely a tactic of bringing Roberston into a discussion, to hyperbolically demonize all Christians.  That was quite big of you to advance such a confession>>

Well, I can speak for myself on that issue.  I brought Robertson into the discussion as a clear-cut demonstration of the hypocrisy of the Amerikkkan fascist movement, who think they can demnize all Muslims, or those who oppose Amerikkkan fascism, racism and imperialism, by quoting their craziest religious leaders, not realizing that the same tactic would work equally well in reverse.

Your demonstration works if the reverse is equal.

[fatman]

The Pat Robertson impression is made from the information availible to him , includeing the incidents when homosexuals were purposely confrontational.

So some homosexuals are confrontational, and all of a sudden Pat Robertson, with God on his speed dial, suddenly knows that they want to  throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS?  I googled homosexuals throwing blood, and all I found was Robertson's quote.  Perhaps you could show me where a gay person suggested such action?  And if I'm wrong I'll admit it.  Sounds to me more like he's trying to condemn homosexuals not by the traditional action, the Bible, but by pretending to know what they want to do.  That's dishonest.  And frankly, kind of sick.