How does a person like Pat Robertson compare to the Iraqi insurgents and other terrorists? Isn't threatenting a town because they didn't vote the way he wanted them to a form of psychological terrorism?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

I think I have made it clear that I am no fan of Pat. And I really do think that this man has literally gone insane. I predict that within a couple years we will read about him being institutionalized.

But no, you cannot compare the babbling of a mad man to people using guns and bombs to actually kill people. I believe in free speech and have faith that in a free society this kind of nonsense can be allowed as long as people of reason are free and willing to contest it. As long as we are free to point out how silly he is, let him ramble on, he can really do us no harm

__________________
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe,
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. -- Albert Einstein

The problem is he has followers and some people will buy into what he has to say. There are people who believe in God's wrath and Robertson is considered to be the word of God by some.

As for bombing, the time in between bombs can be very terrorizing.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Ahhhhhh!!! You are making me defend Pat Robertson!!!!!

He has not to my knowledge told any of his followers to throw bombs at this town. In this case he is not committing violence, nor is he inciting violence. He is protected by freedom of speech.

As for his followers, they have the right to listen to him. We can not make them think. There have always been people who refused to think for themselves and there always will be. All we can do is try to provide reason for those who will hear and try to show them that this man is a fool.


I do remember not long ago he advocated the assassination of someone. That may have been actionable. But he was probably just on the line with that as well. If he keeps going the way he is going one day he will say something that will get someone killed. But that has not happened yet.

__________________
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe,
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. -- Albert Einstein

I didn't say anything about Robertson ordering bombs on Dover. You are the one that brought up the bomb parallel.

What I am saying is, since Robertson is a minister and in a leadership position he is using psychological warfare, which is what terrorism is.

He has told the residents of Dover that they have voted God out of their lives and they had better go elsewhere for the solution of their problems. He has also told them they their city will probably suffer some devastation because of their actions. Whether or not anyone believes him is beside the point, he is using psychological tools

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Salvation, as taught by fundamental Christianity, is equally if not more terrorizing. Reject Jesus and you will suffer eternal ****ation.

Fundamental Christianity might also be considered totalitarianism. Arendt points to two major elements; a simple ideology that explains all and terror. Nazi Germany had evolution/survival of the fittest and death camps. Fundamental Christianity has the Gospel and eternal ****ation.

In the original question you compared his statement (words) to the action of Iraqi insurgents (killing people). What they are doing in Iraq involves bombs and guns and missiles etc. What Pat is doing involves nothing but his own stupidity.



He is using words. You can call them “psychological tools” if you want to, but they are still just words. I am not denying that words can be powerful, and they can cause real harm, but do you really think that the people in Dover are actually afraid because of what Pat said? Whether people believe him is the point. If the don’t believe them, where is the terror? If there is no terror, there is no terrorism. This is not “psychological warfare”. This is nonsense.

You may not like what he has to say, and please believe me when I say I don’t like what he has to say. I am banging my head against the wall because I am forced to defend this nonsense. But I truly believe that freedom of speech is sacred. And it is precisely when you do not like what someone has said, that you need to defend their right to say it. It is easy to defend speech that does not offend us, but it is also pointless. Freedom of speech must apply to everything and everyone, including this person. Or else it means nothing.

We cannot censor this man just because some people may actually believe that God will punish the town. Some people will believe anything. But we have to have faith that most people will be reasonable. And as long as people are free to express themselves, reason will always defeat nonsense. It is when we start censoring people, telling them what they can and cannot say that nonsense will triumph over truth.

__________________
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe,
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. -- Albert Einstein

Yes, I agree with you. This is the exact point I am making.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

I don't think that either the general form of Christianity, or it's Founder or Scripture equate well with totalitarianism.

First of all "Christianity" isn't any one thing. One or another Christian might speak with a certain authority because of what they believe but the reality is that there are thousands of denominations, and even if you restrict your discussion to the dozen or so major denominations you must allow that "Christianity" is not a monolith thing that simply condemns any segment to eternal or temporary hell. For any segment pretty much you can find another division that doesn't.

As for the singular majority of Roman Catholocism - something my bible-belt southern neighbors call another religion - even there it is not simple totalitarianism internally - the Pope does not have exclusive authority. There are cardinals and bishops and their jobs isn't just to do what the Pope says, there is a kind of community and relationship and give and take not equatable with rule-by-fear-and-terror that Stalin and Hitler used.

As for the tendency of some to authoritatively toss some to hell if they don't beleive, I feel this is not anything inherent in Christiantiy just as it isn't of any Faith. A drive towards literalism, and a drive towards judgementalism, is something common to humanity and is given voice by both the far left and the far right of American politics and members of every Faith. In small measure I think it a natural result of seaking the truth. After the period of searching one thinks one has FOUND THE TRUTH, and questions and intellectualism and debate are simply signs of confusion and weakness. Think of the born again anti-smoker. They might be right, but they are RIGHT, which kind of undercuts the communication that depends on understanding and respect.

I support understanding not by defending what's his name (I've already commented he should be deported), but by defending others, as I do here for Christians though I am not a Christian, and by my posts to inform about Islam, though I am not a Muslim. I think fairness requires it's due to each.

If Pat Robertson is believed to have just one follower, and Pat has stated that "God will allow for disaster in this town," then yes I believe that this is a form of psychological terrorism.

For how is it different if say Bin Laden puts out an announcement that says, "the time has come when Allah shall destroy the Great Satan." And then one of Bin Laden followers decides to strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up, plus a whole bunch of other people? Would we say that Bin Laden's remarks are culpable in this situation, and/or that Bin Laden is protected from any wrong doing since he didn't actually do the actions, he merely expressed words?

For if a Christian "terrorists" decides to take it upon themselves to "bring disaster" to this town, where Pat just happened to mention that "God would allow for it," are we saying that Pat had nothing to do with the chosen actions of this person? Are we gonna wait until something like that happens before we examine Pat's words to determine if he (Pat) has any ill willed intentions toward this town?

Until Pat steps forward and in a very public way states something along the lines of how his remarks were non-Christian based and insensitive, I believe it is up to humanity, especially Christians, to state this. Unfortunately, only Christians can determine if Pat is fit to be a outspoken voice within Christianity (or at least that particular denomination of Christianity). Likewise, only Muslims can say that Bin Laden's words are in no way reflective of Islamic teachings and understandings. And since I have heard at least a few Muslims state this, I don't believe that Bin Laden is really a Muslim, even if he claims himself to be one.