The Grand Island Independent Forums

THAT I agree with 100% BUT, 'Hate Speech'-?? Absolutely NOT-!!!

Your likening these so-called far-right Christians with used car salesmen is a good analogy AND, I pay as much attention the each of them and Olbermann as I do an ant fart during a tornado - i.e., ZIPPO, ZILK, NADA-!! So, do not ask me to label an ant fart as 'hate speech'-!! Clear enough-??

what if the ant lights its fart?

ZIPPO-??

If that is exactly the point of your thread you are comparing apples and oranges. You are mixing Politics with Religion which was the point of one of zap’s posts. The salient point you are glossing over is which of the two examples you give have POWER over the decisions you or I make.

What POWER does a Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. have in FORCING you to believe them or FORCING you to do what they tell you to do? YOU are the one putting them on a pedestal not me so how is it my responsibility if they exercise their Constitutional right to free speech given to EVERY citizen of the United States…why does it matter or what difference does admonishment or acceptance of their OPINIONS make? Cuz that is what they are, only opinion.

They are not elected or appointed “leaders” of Christianity so to whom are they accountable for what they say? Well, I believe that to be the same One who so loved the world He sent his only Son, to whom I am also accountable. I also understand and believe His door is always open so if YOU want someone to hold them and/or me accountable, talk to Him…He alone has the POWER of accountability.

Conversely, POWER and FORCE over decisions you and I make is directly impacted by Politicians. Without either of these Politicians have no impact on your or my life. And since you and I are directly impacted by Politicians decisions it is not unreasonable to hold them, and those who applaud their tyranny, accountable for their indiscriminate use of POWER and FORCE.If you don't want me to judge your opinion as a Democrat, then get off the Platform. YOU need to be able to accept that I have read the Democratic Party Platform and judge ALL Democrats based on what the Platform has declared. Then the Party attempts, through POLITICAL action, to FORCE me to stand on the same Platform.

As long as you are standing on that Platform and support the belief that I should be FORCED into chains and shackles to stand with you, I will rebel and hold you accountable.

Allow me to use the words of one of this forum's wise posters: "A most profound post" Bubba!

Only Pat Robertson can take responsibility for Pat Robertson. However, here is a good response to Robertson (indirectly)from a conservative evangelical perspective:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/14/ ... ate-haiti/

Thanx.
I appreciate the response.

If you say so.
However - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_fo ... Criticisms
http://watch.pair.com/cnpdbase.html

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

So now we are going to go to conspiracy theories? Are any of those “council” members directly able to pass laws to FORCE you to do anything?

If you like conspiracy theories check out the Bilderberg Group. Now here is a bunch to be watchful of because they ARE the POWER…not only in America but the World…note who from the United States was in attendance at the 2009 conference.I have heard that our own Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton attended the conference held in Virginia. Hmmm, which one is the conservative?

"One Man's Conspiracy is Another Man's Patriotism"
I took your post at face value, when you said -


Since I would consider Dominionism to be in direct conflict to the U.S. Constitution, I figured I would point this out;
Especially if the folks who believe in it are involved in political influence to further it's ends.
Perhaps your definition of tyranny is different than mine.

What did your research on Bilderberg turn up?

Interesting how you consider Dominionism, which is merely a philosophy, to be in direct conflict to the U. S. Constitution, yet applaud your fellow Democrats when they pass legislation that will become ENFORCABLE LAW and which IS in direct conflict to the U.S. Constitution, yet you fail to see the difference.

I do not endorse nor believe in that philosophy and have absolutely no desire to FORCE my belief in the POWER of God on you or anybody else. You on the other hand, do believe in the POWER of the Democratic Party and its desire to FORCE me and everyone else to buy health insurance (just ONE example). See the difference…now tell me which of the two fits YOUR definition of tyranny.

That they engender alot of conspiracy talk and (in a sense) mirror the Council for National Policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group


That was a nice rejoinder on your part Bubba. Globalism is secular in substance, and Secular Humanism would be in diametrical opposition to the Council for National Policy.

Insofar as tyranny - I think that you and I rely on different definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
As for myself, I side more with Nietzsche than Ayn Rand.

I would also like to add that we have a Supreme Court in this land, who's members are more conservative than either house of Congress.
Dominionists are very unhappy with the Supreme Court, even the one we have today.

Fair enough.
And the irony of my Avatar has not been lost on me.

I try to teach my children that thoughtless words can have far-reaching consequences. Public figures sometimes forget this simple maxim. When I started this thread, I had no idea that Pat Robertson would oblige me with an example.

Sorry to post 3 in a row on my own thread, but I think this needs to be explained -


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berl ... 24037.html

I normally dislike using The Huffington Post as a primary source, but this particular article reads more as an info piece than some kind of a liberal rant. If I can offer advice to anyone interested in reading it, I'd skip the first part that's talking about Palin and start at the 4th paragraph.
Here is why it is relevant to this thread -


This is why I brought up politics in this thread, particularly with the tendency to hold Democrats accountable for all the sins of their members. Some light should be shown on the other end of the political spectrum, especially those who pursue a political agenda and than "run for cover" in their church when unintended consequences happen.
Do I personally believe in a "Dominionist Conspiracy" that's trying to take over the United States? NO; Even I'm not that absurd, but there is an agenda that mirrors the most liberal Democrats. And since I hold a person's faith in such a high regard, I find it a bit odious that folks would cloak their religion with politics.
If someone wishes to mix their politics with religion, that's their affair (frankly, that sort of drink would give me a hangover). I just don't understand why they aren't up front about it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e24412.htm
You might be interested in this letter to Pat from . . . . . well, you'll see who.