Pat Robertson has cancer

Luc wrote:
But some con man and frauds are smart enought to avoid justice. They pick subjects that are not punished by law.

Hmm, so who decides what is justice? you? I submit to you that if acts of that kind are not considered crimes today, the whole judicial system of 200 plus years has decided it is not unjust.

Why should I not be glad if one of those frauds suffers?

Maybe because it is immoral?

Hazelip wrote:
I wrote that Pat Robertson deserves pain and suffering.

Would you consider the idea that wanting pain and suffering for another human could be wrong? Please consider that the modern State prohibits pain and suffering for any human being. There is a UN proclamation, you know, about this (1948). Even if Robertson were to be convicted and sent to prison, the pain and suffering of encarceration would be of a completely different nature than the one cancer causes.

Tricky wrote:
Is there anyone, living or dead, who "deserves" pain and suffering?

Me, me, me, let me answer that. :D No, not the kind we are talking about, not if you believe in universal human rights (of the living, of course)

Scotth wrote:
I don't see how. I don't see how someone being gullible gives anyone the right to defraud them.

You have used a legal penal term defraud. If you believe this is the case, then it would be possible to press charges, prosecute and convict (is he eligible for due process?). I'm just suggesting that it might be possible, even if you believe he is a criminal, that to the judicial system, he is not defrauding anyone, and so the bank robbery reference sounds "sound".
 
Christian said:
Would you consider the idea that wanting pain and suffering for another human could be wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I have no problem with being wrong once in a while.
 
Jimmy

You compare me on the same level as PR. You equate my not carring and amusement with his situation, with him wanting to see people tortured forever.

A=B=C?

I take what you say to its logical conclusion that you think I am equal in depravity to PR.

You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Totally misread what I was saying Jimmy. In that statement I was merely summarizing my opponents position. I in fact do not believe you are as bad as PR for being callous/humored by PR's cancer.
 
Dialectic...Then please take me out of the equation.

Christian..."Because it is immoral" By who's standards? Yours? Mine? Osama's?

Who says that I can't be glad if someone gets their comeupance?

I damn sure know PR has no feelings for the victims of homophobic hatred other than that they got what they deserved.

I am damn sure he has no compassin for those sinners that died in the WTC.

I am damn sure he is not going to get one iota of compassion from me unless he stands up before the entire North American population and apologizes for his ignorant and unfeeling behaviour.
 
Hazelip and Jimmygun....

It seems you have a literalist interpretation of who is a Christian...

and thus you and Pat Robertson agree on more than you thought.

---,---'--{@
 
Jimmygun wrote:
Christian..."Because it is immoral" By who's standards? Yours? Mine? Osama's?

I define moral acts as those that seek the common good. There seems to be a basic concensus about prolonged physical pain on a person. That is not good. That someone thinks is good, IMHO is immoral.

The universal proclamation of human rights and most primary law documents (of most countries) contain specific prohibitions on this regard.

Now, because it is the law worldwide, (even if in your country it is not, you can be internationally prosecuted, althought I believe in the US it's a crime), no one can inflict prolonged physical pain on anyone (that, I believe, is called torture).

If someone wants to indulge and derive pleasure from someone else's prolonged physical pain just because he or she doesn't agree with that person's views and lawful actions, he or she has every right to. I have every right to respecfully disagree and run like mad in the opposite direction.

Who says that I can't be glad if someone gets their comeupance?

Yes, you do. But, please think that you might be paying a steep price for this happiness. By showing no compassion for someone with oppositive views, what can be said of your overall compassion for humans.

I damn sure know PR has no feelings for the victims of homophobic hatred other than that they got what they deserved.I am damn sure he has no compassin for those sinners that died in the WTC.

It is an excellent point to bring out, if this is true, his lack of compassion for others that do not share his views is exactly the same coin.

I am damn sure he is not going to get one iota of compassion from me unless he stands up before the entire North American population and apologizes for his ignorant and unfeeling behaviour.

But doesn't this defeat the purpose of compassion, if we only are to those who merit it, then what is our merit?
 
Christian said:
The universal proclamation of human rights and most primary law documents (of most countries) contain specific prohibitions on this regard.

Now, because it is the law worldwide, (even if in your country it is not, you can be internationally prosecuted, althought I believe in the US it's a crime), no one can inflict prolonged physical pain on anyone (that, I believe, is called torture).
Click to expand...

Irrespective of the rest of your statement, the above is Simply Not True.
 
gmol wrote:
Irrespective of the rest of your statement, the above is Simply Not True.

Can you point out why and what part is not true?

Please refer to UN Declaration 1948.

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/un_udhr.html

From there
Art. 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Click to expand...

I understand causing prolonged physical pain is considered torture.


And this manual covers aspects of International Human Right Laws which is based on the 1948 Declaration signed by the member States.

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu6/2/pocketbook.pdf


And in here you will find the specific UN document regarding torture:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

From there:
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Click to expand...
 
The 'most countries' caveat *may* be true, but I am quite sure that you can't just walk into another country and accuse them of torture; as people don't do it (the accusing, that is).

Forgetting about the fact that Taiwan and our good ol neighbour the Vatican are not members of the UN; I think it is fair to say that it is an accepted world-wide law, is plainly distant from the practical truth.

Government sanctioned torture happens all the time, everywhere (all you need do is google 'torture'). Take a look at Iraq and North Korea, Isreal; within those UN countires lay unequivocal examples of sponsered torture (per definition of your cited Article 1). Nobody has taken any of those countires to international court on the charge of torture....

There are people accusing the US of torture for the obvious reasons....I don't see an international court case; and I would fall off my chair if I ever heard a guilty verdict.
 
jimmygun said:
My wife who is a devout Catholic is the same. When she dies she is convinced she will go to heaven and when my son and I die we will not. When I asked how she can reconcile having her loved ones in hell while she basks in heaven her reply was that God will erase all memory of us. You draw your own conclusions from this type of thinking.
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump in like this, Jimmy, everyone, particularly at this point in the discussion. But this line from Jimmy literally kept me up all night. I had to say something...

First of all, Jimmy, who died and put your wife in charge? On what basis does she make claims regarding your salvation? If she's a devout Catholic, as you say, then there's some question here in her rather callous remark as to whom she believes is God.

Tell me where she gets this idea that God will suddenly erase all memory of others? I read the exact same Bible she does, and I don't see it. (Well, maybe not... I read both the NIV and the Jerusalem Bible. I've also got a comparative text version, with four different versions of the Bible next to one another, plus a copy of the Greek New Testament. I was once studying for the ministry...) I see lots of suggestions that God will be drying a lot of tears, but I sure as Hell don't see any evidence that God is suddenly going to do a brain-wipe on us.

Holy ◊◊◊◊, if that's the sort of thing I can expect from God, to suddenly find myself in His arms, only to have Him blot out all memory of love from those I knew and loved...

Let me put another view on this...

In November of 2000, I lost my Dad. He never, (and I mean NEVER) forgave me for being tossed out of the Army, particularly after he spent over 20 years of his life in this nation's service. When he died, it was perhaps one of the greatest heartbreaks in my life.

See, he was my Hero.

I also never once heard him tell me that he'd ever "Accepted the Lord Jesus as Lord and Savior," so I'm sort of in this situation where I don't know what's what with all of this.

I have a hard time with people who are so damned quick to condemn a guy like my Dad to Hell, simply because no one ever heard my father declare what his faith was or wasn't. It's really not my place to know: I was just his son. I watched a good man who gave his nation years of service, and receive so very little for what he gave. But, he gave so willingly to those who asked. He was perhaps one of the most generous individuals I've ever known, and I've never forgotten those lessons. (I've not really been able to live up to them as well as he did, but it's not for lack of desire or trying. I did learn that much from him.)

My dad lived what would be called a "Christian life," even if he didn't jump through all the hoops that a jackass like Pat Robertson thinks he should have. I've got a real problem with people who are so damned quick to send men and women like my dad to Hell. On what basis do Robertson, Roberts, Humbard, or Falwell make their declaration? Which Bible are they reading? Obviously not one I've been reading. (Last time I checked, God Himself decided who entered His courts, not some jerk dressed in Gucci. Geez, you listen to these clowns, you'd think that in California, Jesus wears Armani...)

(I have a real hard time, too, with the notion that Soubrette, RandFan, Girl 6, Rikzilla, Hazelip, Shanek, Doctor X, or any number of posters here, for the lack of crying "Praise, Jesus!" would be damned to an eternity of misery. I thought Christian Faith was a search for Truth, based on Fact, not mindless submission to a dogma. So I don't agree with them. Thank God! Maybe one of us will get it right!)

For months after my dad died, (and sometimes, I still do), I had the most vivid dreams of driving my Kenworth with a full load. (As a gear jammer, I don't usually double-clutch. I "float" the gears, which means I shift using the tach, slipping the shifter out of gear and into the next one when I hit the sweet spots.) I'd be rolling out, with the sun sliding down in the sky, and for whatever reason, Dad sitting in the Buddy Seat.

"I'd feel better if you used the clutch."

"Don't need to," I'd tell him.

"Don't you think you should upshift...?"

"Can't. You don't shift when you're crossing railroad tracks..."

It would go like that. I know, it's off topic, and not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. But, that was the way he was while I was growing up, when I was learning to drive, and when I finally grew into an adult, and started raising my own family. Why would I want to forget the man who still, even in the midst of my failure, still gave of himself to me?

Why would I want to forget the love I've shared with my wife, or with my sons? Why would I want anyone to strip me of the love shared with friends from all over? What sort of a hateful, evil God would strip me of something that has in fact defined me, and helped me to strive to become better? You're wife actually looks forward to forgetting you and your son? What sort of vicious God does your wife worship?

If that's what I have to look forward to at the end of my life, forgetting love and honor shared, then that's no Heaven where I'd want to go, and that's no God I want to worship.

Sorry, all. I realize I've taken a lot of time here. I didn't mean to, but this really got to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm living a fantasy in my Christian beliefs, that God is more merciful than legalistic, but I'd rather bring comfort than pain. Please forgive the hijack.
 
Christian... if you define a moral act as something that is for the common good then we must agree. It is my humble opinion that removing Pat R from the list is for the common good. I never said I would enjoy his suffering, on the contrary, I don't think he will suffer. He will be able to buy every known drug available and pay a doctor to deliver them. He won't suffer unless it is mentally.

I do reserve my compassion for those that deserve it. I am not bound by some religious duty to feel compassion for every one or thing. Compassion like respect is earned, it is not a given.

You ask what is our merit in that? Our? I happen to be talking about my merit not ours.

Roadtoad...I used my wife's slant as an example that religion and this whole god thing is so screwy. That a person like my wife who is one of the most compassionate people I know still can turn on a dime and be comfortable that others are condemned to the pit is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

In all fairness she also thinks that god is going to change my son's and my own heart and we will all be in glory for ever together.

You lost your father. From what I read you and he had a very strained relationship. You and he probably went through all kinds of emotional termoil. Your lives may have been as ◊◊◊◊◊◊ as can be. What kind of compassion would PR have piled on you as you mourn your father? Instead of trying to comfort you and ease your pain he would heap more ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on you for his own gain. That is exactly why I think he and others are such slime balls. And as such they do not deserve my pity or compassion.

Finella...PR and I do not agree on your point. I only state his positon. He is absolutely and totally wrong. Jesus is not the only way to heaven. There is no heaven and there is no way of getting there.

Somewhere along the line, in order for you to argue your point you deemed it necessary to draw comparisons between me and PR. I am the opposite of PR. I think all that he says and does is wrong and mean. If you wish, give me a list of all the things PR stands for and says and does and I will give you my counterpoints as to what I stand for, say and do.
 
Wow . . . rather sad stuff. . . .

If a deity exists that proves so venile that it would condemn good men to some place of eternal torture then I wish to have nothing to do with the cur.

I only deal with gentlemen.

What is sadder is the need of some to have a justification of a faith so badly that they can except the obscene.

--J.D.
 
jimmygun said:

Somewhere along the line, in order for you to argue your point you deemed it necessary to draw comparisons between me and PR. I am the opposite of PR. I think all that he says and does is wrong and mean. If you wish, give me a list of all the things PR stands for and says and does and I will give you my counterpoints as to what I stand for, say and do.
Click to expand...

I only deemed it "necessary", as you put it, to draw the comparison, when it was obvious that you seem to think you -- as well as PR -- can tell me whether I am a Christian or not. I think that's rather amusing.

I don't know what else you and PR agree on... perhaps you can tell me?

---,---'--{@
 
gmol wrote:
The 'most countries' caveat *may* be true, but I am quite sure that you can't just walk into another country and accuse them of torture; as people don't do it (the accusing, that is).

Listen, this is way of topic here but, this is not the procedure, international laws has its own protocols of how things are done.

Forgetting about the fact that Taiwan and our good ol neighbour the Vatican are not members of the UN; I think it is fair to say that it is an accepted world-wide law, is plainly distant from the practical truth.

This is a valid point, but please consider it is irrelevant. That many laws are not positive has nothing to do with our understanding of right and wrong.

Government sanctioned torture happens all the time, everywhere (all you need do is google 'torture'). Take a look at Iraq and North Korea, Isreal; within those UN countires lay unequivocal examples of sponsered torture (per definition of your cited Article 1). Nobody has taken any of those countires to international court on the charge of torture....

Again, discussing this is way of topic. And in no way disproves what I've said.

There are people accusing the US of torture for the obvious reasons....I don't see an international court case; and I would fall off my chair if I ever heard a guilty verdict.

I'm not sure if you are aware that you are arguing a strawman here.

Christian... if you define a moral act as something that is for the common good then we must agree. It is my humble opinion that removing Pat R from the list is for the common good.

It's good that we agree on the definition. Now, please consider the term common good. It is a relative term. The common good keeps expanding as the perspective does. The common good for the family, the neighborhood, the city, the state, country etc.

When you say removing PR from the list is for the common good, I understand you mean the common good of some.

The thing is that, IMHO, to be moral, we must look for the greater common good.

I submit to you that removing him is not for the greater common good. The reason is simple. If we are going to have the power to remove those who we believe spread the wrong, destructive message then, we have taken away one of the most fundamental freedoms.

But, I don't want to argue strawmen here. To me it is immoral to rejoice or be glad that someone we dislike for their views is dying of cancer simply because that is the door to the logical step you just took, which is "Why don't we just remove those type of people from society? Hey, everyone will be happy about it. The world will be a better place."

To me, the sword cuts both ways.


Jimmygun wrote:
I do reserve my compassion for those that deserve it. I am not bound by some religious duty to feel compassion for every one or thing. Compassion like respect is earned, it is not a given.

I agree with you, you are not bound to feel compassion for anyone you don't want. The only thing that binds any person anywhere is the State.

The thing is that the State uses morality and justice as its guides to create the laws that bind us.

So, if you are ever in a situation were someone you utterly hate, who does not deserve your compassion, is in dire need of help and you are the only one who is able to help, it is your duty to have compassion and help them. (This is the case were you find someone runover in a desert, and you just happen to be passing by. In most countries, you are required to take them to a place were they can be assisted. Sure, someone can always argue they never saw them or could help, but that would only make them more immoral.)

You ask what is our merit in that? Our? I happen to be talking about my merit not ours.

Jimmy, what I meant is that compassion is not compassion unless there is the forginess component within.

To put in another way, if you are only compassionate with those who merit your compassion, you are not being compassionate at all.
 
Christian...You assume too much. Removing PR from the list is for the greater good. Can you imagine if by some quirk he was elected president? I can assure you that there would be a lot less freedom of anything and a lot more suffering. There would be no compassion or tolerance of others. There would be no none Christians or Jews in his government (as per his own words). Atheists Budhists, Muslim, Hindi, you name it would be second class citizens again (best case scenario).

I have no control over PR's predicament. If he dies of cancer tough, if he lives with cancer too bad. I simply do not care. I simply have no compassion for him and his ilk.

The state cannot legislate morality. It can only legislate behaviour. It can force me to help someone to safety or medical treatment but it cannot force me to donate a kidney. It can force me to help to an extent, but it cannot force me to care.

Compassion? Do you argue that your compassion is legitimate and mine is not? Pretty high handed isn't that? I could argue that my compassion has more validity and meaning simply because it is uncoerced and sincere.

For the record one more time...I do not rejoice that PR will suffer with cancer. I do not think he will. I would be willing to entertain the thought of forgiving him if he came clean and asked for that forgiveness (kinda Jesus like huh?) but I don't see that forthcoming.
 
Jimmy wrote:
Christian...You assume too much. Removing PR from the list is for the greater good.

My only observation here is that removing people based on their convictions and beliefs is not on my list.

Can you imagine if by some quirk he was elected president? I can assure you that there would be a lot less freedom of anything and a lot more suffering. There would be no compassion or tolerance of others. There would be no none Christians or Jews in his government (as per his own words). Atheists Budhists, Muslim, Hindi, you name it would be second class citizens again (best case scenario).

I can understand why you speculate this way.

I have no control over PR's predicament. If he dies of cancer tough, if he lives with cancer too bad. I simply do not care. I simply have no compassion for him and his ilk.

You have made this point quite clear.

The state cannot legislate morality. It can only legislate behaviour.

No disagreement here.

It can force me to help someone to safety or medical treatment but it cannot force me to donate a kidney.

Obviously.

It can force me to help to an extent, but it cannot force me to care.

Actually, the State can force you to care and that is one of its purposes.

Compassion? Do you argue that your compassion is legitimate and mine is not?

I don't know personally about your compassion, it is impossible for me to judge that. I can say (and this only being my opinion, for whatever it's worth) that it is immoral to be happy about a another person's suffering.

I could argue that my compassion has more validity and meaning simply because it is uncoerced and sincere.

Yes, you could.

For the record one more time...I do not rejoice that PR will suffer with cancer.

And you know, I didn't think you did.

I would be willing to entertain the thought of forgiving him if he came clean and asked for that forgiveness (kinda Jesus like huh?) but I don't see that forthcoming.

Don't hold your breath :D

It was nice exchanging with you. :)
 
Allow me to get the last word in.

I do not wish to get rid of PR because of his convictions and beliefs. I wish that he were gone because of his track record of bigotry and hatred, hypocracy and fear mongering. He is an open wound on society.

I do not see how a government can force me to care? They can force me to pretend but that is just behaviour. They do not control my thoughts.

I do not speculate that PR would be a dangerous president. I take his word on it.
 
ironic.....

http://www.700club.com/communitypublic/antioxidants.asp

------

My opinion of Pat Robertson is that he is morally corrupt, mentally unstable, and an all-around nasty person. So I guess you could make the case that I am happy to see that he may die (sooner than later). I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying it.....but I can't deny the truth:
Pat, I'm glad you're sick and I hope you die soon. ....I feel so bad saying that....hmmm...ah yes! A walk down the "quotable Pat Robertson memory lane" may ease my ill-comfort ....

"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti- family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/ 21/93

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992, suggesting that South African white people's votes ought to count more than other votes because they are in the minority

Yep!!! That did it!

Cheers
M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom