You have the nerve to talk label Islam. Look at the so-called Christian

Robertson suggests God smote Sharon

Evangelist links Israeli leader's stroke to 'dividing God's land'

(CNN) -- Television evangelist Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which Robertson opposed.

He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America,' Robertson told viewers of his long-running television show, The 700 Club.

God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone,' he said.

Robertson's show airs on the ABC Family cable network and claims about 1 million viewers daily.

Sharon, 77, clung to life in a Jerusalem hospital Thursday after surgery to treat a severe stroke, his doctors said.

The prime minister, who withdrew Israeli settlers and troops from Gaza and parts of the West Bank last summer over heated objections from his own Likud Party, was breathing with the aid of a ventilator after doctors operated to stop the bleeding in his brain.

In Washington, President Bush offered praise for Sharon in a speech on Thursday.

We pray for his recovery, Bush said. He's a good man, a strong man. A man who cared deeply about the security of the Israeli people, and a man who had a vision for peace. May God bless him.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, compared Robertson's remarks to the overheated rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Full story)

He called the comments outrageous and said they were not something to expect from any of our friends.

He is a great friend of Israel and a great friend of Prime Minister Sharon himself, so I am very surprised, Ayalon told CNN.

Robertson, 75, founded the Christian Coalition and in 1988 failed in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination. He last stirred controversy in August, when he called for the assassination of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez. (Full story)

Robertson later apologized, but still compared Chavez to Hitler and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the process.

The same month, the Anti-Defamation League criticized Robertson for warning that God would bring judgment against Israel for its withdrawal from Gaza, which it had occupied since the 1967 Mideast war.

Robertson said Thursday that Sharon was a very likable person, and I am sad to see him in this condition.

He linked Sharon's health problems to the 1995 assassination of Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo peace accords that granted limited self-rule to Palestinians.

It was a terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless, now he's dead, Robertson said.

Rabin was gunned down by a religious student opposed to the Oslo accords. The killer, Yigal Amir, admitted to the crime and was sentenced to life in prison.

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Robertson's comments Thursday, saying the televangelist has a political agenda for the entire world.

He seems to think God is ready to take out any world leader who stands in the way of that agenda, Lynn said in a written statement.

A religious leader should not be making callous political points while a man is struggling for his life, he said. I'm appalled.

Ralph Neas, president of liberal advocacy group People for the American Way, said it is astonishing that Pat Robertson still wields substantial influence in the Republican Party.

Once again, Pat Robertson leaves us speechless with his insensitivity and arrogance, Neas said in a written statement.

According to The Associated Press, Robertson spokeswoman Angell Watts said of people who criticized the comments: What they're basically saying is, 'How dare Pat Robertson quote the Bible?'

This is what the word of God says, Watts told the AP. This is nothing new to the Christian community.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

There, I labeled you.  You deserve it.

by Kathy Belge

You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?

First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.

What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.

Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple.

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

if you have enough time on your hands.  Here is an article asking if President Bush is the anti-Christ.  People will believe what they want to. 

http://markswatson.com/bushac.htm

Healthcare reform is a much debated subject.  We, the great people of the United States, should adopt the attitude that we can set higher benchmarks in the area of healthcare.  Wouldn't that be something to be proud of?  The great difference between the liberal and conservative stance on healthcare is that we liberals view it as a human issue whereas the conservatives view it as a business. Who is right and who is wrong?  Depends on your personal point of view.  I am certainly not trying to change anyone's fundamental way of thinking, I only want to people to start talking about, researching it, talking to your friends, your neighbors, your family, your doctor, your representatives, and make up your own mind about to make a reality.  I am not endorsing any particular or single proposal that is currently on the table and I am certainly not attacking anyone in particular.

I'm one of the happiest people you'd ever want to meet. 

I just have zero tolerance and respect for people who exploit God and Jesus to further their own angry, hateful, lying platforms.

I was brought up to believe that God and Jesus represent love and peace and truth.  There is nothing about you or any of your posts that reflects those concepts.

I pray that you get help for the obvious anger, rage and hate and your total and absolute lack of ability to be straightforward and honest.  Instead, you seem to get much pleasure from stomping people into the ground and degrading them.  Poor you.

Maybe you're someone who used to have a life, but now you can't even afford to put gas in your car any more.  Maybe you're someone who used to be middle class but woke up one morning to find that your class is sinking (socioeconomic class, not your other obvious class deficiencies in how you treat people).  Maybe you can no longer afford to see your psychiatrist and/or take your antipsychotic medication due to the terrible state of America's healthcare system today. Maybe you used to get out of the house on weekends, but instead now you're forced to stay home because you can't afford to put gas in your car any more, and you're angry and need to take it out on someone, so you come here and flame liberals, instead of blaming the president that is running this country into the ground. But then you'd have to admit you were wrong for supporting him, and just like him, you can't admit you were wrong, right?

Either way, please try to get some help before your anger and rage consumes you any further and you wind up hurting yourself or someone else.  Perhaps I'm making it worse by confusing and angering you with the truth.  Perhaps it's best for us all if I don't respond to your attention-seeking any longer.

I certainly will pray for you, dear.  Please get help, and have a nice evening. 

Thursday, June 22, 2006

• E-Mail


• Respond


• Print

It looks like America is becoming a theocracy.  I always thought that freedom of religion was one of the greatest things about America.  I'm worried it isn't going to exist in a very short time.

The letter you posted is great!  Thanks. 

From WikiPedia:

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.^[11]

Although not a religion, Freemasonry was represented in John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.

christian enough for what?  You said in one of your posts below that, "I find it especially interesting that black churches cannot be "angry" but white churches are free to do a shout out of the next anti-christ?

Hello?  If a black church is preaching hate towards white people, I would call that "angry."  If a white church is preaching about the coming of the anti-christ, how is that "angry?"  Please tell me.  One church is teaching racial hate, the other teaching Bible prophecy.  Please tell me what you mean?

I dont know what kind of church you have been to, but it must not have been a good experience.  God talks about the need for church in the Bible.  We are supposed to worship him, keep the sabbath holy and all of that.  You seem very sarcastic when you speak of Christianity.  I hope that your sister is praying for you. 

him being Muslim, convince yourselves and those voices in your head that he is Muslim and then say he's lying about being Christian.

America is supposed to have freedom of religion.  I don't care what his faith is.  He's not my pastor.  He's my president.