He needs to be kidnapped Eichman style, mickey-finned, and wake up in the middle of the West Bank or Gaza with nothing to protect him but a yamulka. Oh, and his fervent belief in his God. I doubt even his platinum-coated Mastercard will help him there...
Pat Robertson's at it again
- Thread starter Charlie in Dayton
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pat
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Now Pat says he's sorry.
He's lost out on a huge moneymaker, because Israel was so infuriated by the filth that Robertson spewed. So, NOW, he's sorry.
Jack@$$.
He's lost out on a huge moneymaker, because Israel was so infuriated by the filth that Robertson spewed. So, NOW, he's sorry.
Jack@$$.
Speaking as an Evangelical: We despise that guy at least as much as you guys do.
Seriously... there's nothing worse than a "butthead for Jesus".
I think it was Ted Haggard (the current president of the National Association of Evangelicals) who said that "Pat doesn't speak for Evangelicals any more than Dr. Phil speaks for Psychiatry."
Seriously... there's nothing worse than a "butthead for Jesus".
I think it was Ted Haggard (the current president of the National Association of Evangelicals) who said that "Pat doesn't speak for Evangelicals any more than Dr. Phil speaks for Psychiatry."
BeProf, I am sending you the cleaning bill to get all the cola out of my keyboard after reading that post.
That was priceless! I am so making a bumpersticker out of "There's nothing worse than a butthead for Jesus."
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,567
Did you see this at the bottom?
(Bold mine)
Couldn't he have a similar disclaimer on his donut-hole?
Disclaimer: Consult with your common sense before starting this or any new religious regimen or spirituality program, especially if you have allergies to any of the listed or related crapola, or are under the care of a psychiatrist or other medical professional, or have any other gullibility problems. No specific eternal benefit is implied or promised from this nonsense.
EatatJoes
Fundamental Atheist
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 339
I've always thought that if I was wrong about the exsitence of a god and furthur that there is an after life (a good one for the good folks, a real wakin' up to for the dumbsh*ts) that people like us, those in search of truth, will be basking in the eternal sunshine.
David Swidler
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 8,297
And a number of religions agree with you. "The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come" is Judaism's approach, for example, and I'm sure there are analogous beliefs elsewhere. If you're given a brain, use it constructively.
Hm. Judging from the thread topic, that's a big "if."
Hm. Judging from the thread topic, that's a big "if."
Is that the same Ted Haggard who threatened Richard Dawkins with arrest because he (Ted) claimed that Dawkins had called his children "animals" because Dawkins concludes evolution is the correct explanation for biological diversity? If so he doesn't seem that much er more level headed then Robertson?
The main difference is that crucifixes attract them instead of chase them away
You shouldn't be too sure about that.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Perhaps, but more accurately it's the Ted Haggard who Richard Dawkins claimed threatened Richard Dawkins with arrest because he (Ted) claimed that Dawkins had called his children "animals" because Dawkins concludes evolution is the correct explanation for biological diversity. (And breathe)
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
<sigh> Ok, fine, I'll ask it....Evidence? (to either you or Darat, whoever wants to present it even if you don't cause it's really silly and all that)Perhaps, but more accurately it's the Ted Haggard who Richard Dawkins claimed threatened Richard Dawkins with arrest because he (Ted) claimed that Dawkins had called his children "animals" because Dawkins concludes evolution is the correct explanation for biological diversity. (And breathe)
Perhaps, but more accurately it's the Ted Haggard who Richard Dawkins claimed threatened Richard Dawkins with arrest because he (Ted) claimed that Dawkins had called his children "animals" because Dawkins concludes evolution is the correct explanation for biological diversity. (And breathe)
And your point being?
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
My point being, I don't believe everything people tell me on TV.
In a recently broadcast TV programme Dawkins stated that Ted Haggard had asked them to leave his church because of the above. The TV programme was called "Root of all Evil" it also showed some footage which did not contradict Dawkins' claims e.g. Haggard returning to the church in his pick-up van ans some at least some agitation between Dawkins and people who looked as if they were acting on behalf of Haggard.
I cannot find any clips of that part of the programme on line (the only related clip is this one: http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/dawkins_vs_haggard/) which substantiates the claim that Haggard did know of Dawkins stance on evolution.
I've found this site which has the audio of the complete programmer: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006_01.html scroll down to the 10th January section.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Well, to be fair, at this point I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who knows of Dawkins who doesn't know his stance on evolution.
Ok, so, in essence, Haggard is pastor (fill in proper term if he's not a pastor) of a church (in England, I assume?). Dawkins goes to/used to go to this same church. Haggard didn't appreciate Dawkins' stance on evolution, so Haggard asked RD to leave?
So...the threats of arrest happend when? And we care why? Other than it's Dawkins, I mean.
And I don't believe everything anybody tells me.
All I am doing is letting the evidence led me. The evidence is that there is some visual evidence to support the claim made, there is nothing exceptional about the claim (e.g. it breaks no known laws of physics), the programme will have been cleared by the legal department at C4 and so on. Therefore there is no reasonable reason (at the moment) to not believe the statements.
Unless of course you have some evidence that contradicts the statements made by Dawkins?
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
If Darat is right, then no, Haggard doens't seem to be, in this case, any more level headed than our dear friend Pat Robertson....in this case.
However, Darat, I think you'll agree that a religious type getting pissy at Richard Dawkins is de rigeur. It's not like Richard is exactly friendly to relgious claims. If Ted did try to have Dawkins arrested (for what? tresspassing is logical from what you've described), then he's being an intolerant boob...in this case. Not knowing anything else about Ted Haggard, I'll allow him this transgression. If he continues on a campaign of intolerance, bigotry and nutter-hood, then he can join the ranks of Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggar-t and their ilk.
However, Darat, I think you'll agree that a religious type getting pissy at Richard Dawkins is de rigeur. It's not like Richard is exactly friendly to relgious claims. If Ted did try to have Dawkins arrested (for what? tresspassing is logical from what you've described), then he's being an intolerant boob...in this case. Not knowing anything else about Ted Haggard, I'll allow him this transgression. If he continues on a campaign of intolerance, bigotry and nutter-hood, then he can join the ranks of Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggar-t and their ilk.
No - Ted Haggard is a leading light in the USA Evangelical movement (claim backed by: http://www.tedhaggard.com/, http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/answertotedhaggard.html, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/122/21.0.html).
As part of a TV programme he was making Dawkins visited him at his church, he filmed some of the congregation and Ted preaching, he also filmed an interview/discussion with Ted that touched on some of Ted's misunderstandings about reality in general and evolution specifically (claim backed by audio clip for link see above post).
That segment of the programme finished with a voiced over section that Dawkins claims that (from my original post about Ted):
Is that the same Ted Haggard who threatened Richard Dawkins with arrest because he (Ted) claimed that Dawkins had called his children "animals" because Dawkins concludes evolution is the correct explanation for biological diversity? If so he doesn't seem that much er more level headed then Robertson?
sphenisc apparently holds the view that we can't say that event happened, simply because it appeared on TV. I disagree with that position as the evidence available is sufficient to us we can draw the conclusion that the event did happen.
Last edited:
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
So, the evidence mounts that he's a nutter.
Was Dawkins invited, or just "pop in"?
Well, as a general rule, I think you can agree that TV is an incredable Urban Legend Locus, so sphenisc can be justified in his hesitation. I do agree that you have more than satisfied, at least, my curiosity in this subject.
THat being said, I don't think we can put Haggard up to the level of the other nutters, as he's missing the all-critical name recognition. Also, if BeProf is correct, and he came out against Ol' Pat, then he can't be all bad.