1

I agree, as well...

2

It's nice to know that I'm not the only evangelical out the who doesn't want Falwell to attempt to speak for me.

3

Pat Robertson is worse than Falwell. Falwell comes across worse, but he has more integrity than Robertson. Robertson would sell his soul to help the Republican party. I see them both unfavorably though.

As for the Pope. I think the old guy ain't so bad. But no matter who holds the seat, I prefer to keep the old Protestant tradition of referring to the papacy as antichrist. I can't say any certain Pope is THE Antichrist of course, but the position itself is antichrist.

4

People like Robertson and Falwell made me want nothing to do with the Church for most of my 20 years of life. In fact, their continued position of even nominal "leadership" sometimes makes me uncomfortable with christianity in America. It's foolish, I know, but they're so damnnnn shady, ya know?

5

Hey, the antichrist ain't that bad. So under JPII's reign Protestantism has become Catholicism lite and the distinctions between the two have become blurred. Hey, no big deal. Let's all go serve the antichrist.

6

the antichrist? you mean bush? american christians already serve him! just look and pat jerry to see how much they love him. they think he is there to bring the new age of christianity to the world through bloodshed. brings new meaning to onward chrsian soldiers!

7

Re dicknbush:

Don't feed the trolls.

8

"The media often look to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to speak on behalf of all evangelicals..."

Never mind Robertson or Falwell, what I'd like to know is how Fred "God-Hates-Fags" Phelps got to be the media spokesman for ALL American Christians.

9

re ken, who is the troll?

10

The media are afraid of Evangelicals, as most of them have never met one let alone known one as a friend. They think of the atheist screed _Inherit the Wind_ or the hate tract _Handmaid's Tale_.

So, if they can do anything to save the world from the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, they will, including finding the looniest-seeming individuals to represent flyover country.

11

the looniest ones have the most power and air time.

12

"So under JPII's reign Protestantism has become Catholicism lite and the distinctions between the two have become blurred"

I think that is the fault of the Protestants, not the Pope. 98% of American Protestant Evangelicals are a bunch of fat lazy idiots who won't spend more than 1% of their time (That's 14 minutes a day, so maybe I am being too generous) in order to understand what they believe.

13

jmcgraw: I agree with you, that we are lazy.

But hey once you last past that antichrist stuff, it's clear that he's [their] kind of guy.

14

Falwell and Robertson suffer from overexposure. I suppose their egos demand it, but both have a bad habit of speaking too quickly and too rashly when the media comes-a-callin'.

Unlike Phred Phelps, who is just insufferable ALL the time. Might as well toss him in the pool with the abortion-doc killers, and continue proving that most ordinary Christians are, well, rather ordinary. The kind of people who invite you over for dinner.

15

Marty: I agree with your entire post.

I think something Christians might do well to ponder is why moderate Christians are so under-represented by evangelicals. Also, many Christians complain of liberal bias in education and the media. Whence does this alleged bias arise, and what are Christians doing to, in their view, balance the equation?

16

Se può interessare il pensiero di un "evangelicale" in Italia, dico che è raccapricciante vedere come tra gli evangelicali americani sia così diffusa una incomprensione del Cattolicesimo Romano. Li esorto a leggere in proposito il documento dell'Alleanza Evangelica Mondiale (WEA). Nel nostro Paese gli evangelici non valutano positivamente i tentativi in atto tra alcuni evangelicali di voler fare "comunella" con la chiesa cattolica.

17

So "only" 54% of evangelicals view Robertson favorably? That's awful, something like, what, 30 million people?

Love the pope-bashing on this thread. We finally get a pope willing to stand for something (life) and against something (world Communism, which won't survive JPII) that conservatives SHOULD be on board with, and he's branded the antichrist. Wonderful.

18

I am glad that the pope is anti abortion and that he opposed communism in Europe (though communism in China will outlive him, unless you know something I don't).

karol wojtyla is not the antichrist. Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholic doctrines, the priesthood, the idea of a pope - these are the antichrist.

19

Kevin - What ever will you do if the pope views Robertson favorably?

20

Agree with him. Like most of the time.

21

Kevin,

Just because I agree with the Pope on many things does not mean I should sanction the Catholic Church. The system is an antichrist system, and that should not be forgotten. What do you think the Reformation was all about? Just one bad Pope? Just give the Catholic Church power once again and let's see what happens.

22

So you view Robertson favorably, Ken? Is that what you mean? The same Pat Robertson who said "There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution. It is a lie of the Left, and we are not going to take it anymore." This despite Jefferson's clear explanation of the Constitution's framers' intent in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The same Pat Robertson who attributed the attacks of 9/11 to God's lifting his protection of the U.S.? Do bad things only happen when God lets them? If an omnipotent god wanted to send a nation a message, it seems it could do better than to wordlessly allow the destruction of innocents. For crying out loud, Ken! This man claims to receive knowledge of faith healings from around the country; he knows the city and state, but he doesn't know the name. How convenient! Even a child could see the man's a fanatic and a fraud. He once stated (on 1/11/85, 700 Club) that only Christians and Jews were suitable for public office, then later denied (to Time magazine) ever having made such a statement. Caught in a lie. If G.W.B. doesn't get his "blowout" in November, will you continue to think this man gets his ideas from God?

23

I meant Kevin, not Ken. My apologies for the error.

24

Everything you quote Robertson as saying is correct.

25

The quotations and attributions are accurate, but his messages range from outrageous, deliberate misinterpretation of the founding fathers' intent to lies to the speculations of a deluded demagogue. How can you support the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans? Theocracy is the last thing we need in the U.S. Anyone can see how well it has worked in the past and the present. You can have the Taliban, Jim. I will fight it and encourage others to do the same.

26

Bob, I am not arguing for a theocracy. I believe in a constitutional republic which allows for religious plurality. But only Judeo-Christian values are suitable for that kind of government.

If you think about it, you know that is right, though none of us want to admit it publicly. Do you think that a Muslim president of the United States would be wise? How about a Hindu Prime Minister of Great Britain?

Politically correct? Absolutely. Correct? Absolutely.

27

The separation of church and state, as is defined today, IS a constitutional myth. Are you about to argue that the founders intended to have every mention of God stricken from courthouse walls? Or to silence invocations at high school football games? Come on.
To posit that God is omnipotent, as I do, implies that all things, good or bad, happens because He allows them to. Why? Maybe we don't know. Maybe we never will. Maybe Pearl Harbor had to happen so that Americans would rouse ourselves off the couch to smash Japanese Imperialism and German Naziism once and for all. Maybe 9/11 happened because only the United States can go after the imams and the islamics, thereby saving Western civilization. We cannot know. I rely on the passage in Job: Though He slay me, I will put my faith in Him.

As to Robertson's faith messages, I don't know about that either. Maybe he is prompted in his spirit to pray for an abused wife in Cleveland, Ohio, and doesn't feel it apropos to name her on the air. Or maybe he makes it up. He has to account for it, not I.

I don't know what you're talking about, with a blowout in November. If Pat Robertson claimed that God told him that a blowout was coming, and it doesn't happen, he has biblically demonstrated that he is no prophet. On the other hand, if GWB does win in a landslide, again, who knows?

28

Every mention of God stricken from courthouse walls? No, not if competing worldviews are represented as well. Silencing invocations at football games? No, so lond as they are student-initiated and do not commandeer the public address system. I do not wish to be compelled to stand for a prayer or be seen as odd, perhaps even abused, if I choose not to. The government has no business sanctioning a religious belief system and giving me the choice of conforming or calling unnecessary attention to my nonconformity. Nobody needs to know what I believe. For this reason, I also oppose "under God" in the Pledge and "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the money. Both are the result of religious groups' meddling in government and do not represent millions of U.S. citizens. My daughters have to stand and recite the Pledge every day or be ostracized. How nice it would be if they could express their patriotism without invoking a deity they don't believe in. Religion would be viewed with less hostility if it weren't so coercive.