Pat Robertson, My Mom, A Christian Scientist and a Wiccan

So my mother and my brother are part of a homeschool group in her area that is very diverse and there is much discussion online with them about spiritual things. Here is a series of emails that I wanted to post for you because I'm really proud of the way my mom handled herself.
here's a key for you...
Linda=mom
Wendy=Christian Scientist
Bridget=Wiccan

--- In CLIMB_Outside@yahoogroups.com, "Bridget"

wrote: Some days it’s hard

. . . to rememeber that he doesn't represent ALL Christian.

Televangelist Warns of Evolution Doomsday
Reuters

Thursday 10 November 2005

Pat Robertson says a vote against intelligent design is a vote
against God. Washington - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat
Robertson
told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected
God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if
disaster struck.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111105O.shtml

He did run against Bush Sr in the primaries, but then swung his support
behind him in the general election.

Politicians do want to get votes, that's true. But I would think that
buddying up with Robertson would have the opposite effect, but it
doesn't seem to. I think many politicians are using Christianity, and
a few keys issues specifically, for political gains. Unfortunately,
they seem to not follow Christian principles once they are in office.

Bridget
--- In CLIMB_Outside@yahoogroups.com, "Wendy S" wrote:

Hum, I didn't know he was God or enabled by bible teachings to
make predictions or judgements. Him and the Salem witch hunters.

Wendy

--- In CLIMB_Outside@yahoogroups.com, "Bridget"
wrote:


Yep I know. But this is not the first time he has said something
like this (remember the assassination comment?), yet people are
still sending him money and other 'Christians' are still supporting
him. There is no huge outcry against him coming from other prominant
religious figures - at least nothing big enough that I've seen it
without searching it out. I should do that tomorrow, look to see
WHO is outspoken against him.

Bridget




--- In CLIMB_Outside@yahoogroups.com, "Linda" <...>
wrote:
As a Christ follower I apologize for what Pat Robertson said.

I know lots of pastors who denounce this type of comment...and lots
who would not. Christianity gets complicated at times with the way
people understand and live it out.


--- In CLIMB_Outside@yahoogroups.com, "Bridget"
wrote:

Thank you. It's not so much that I think you need to apologize
for him though. I just don't understand why so many other prominent
Christians aren't publicly denouncing him by now.

Bridget

--- In CLIMB_Outside@yahoogroups.com, "Linda" <...>
wrote:
Bridget---I don't have time to dig into this any further to find
direct quotes regarding the latest statements, but I know my own
pastor denounces statements like this, as do my son's pastors, and
just about every Christian I have talked to.

These quotes are not about Dover, PA, but about Robertson and
Chavez, but I think they give a feel for how some major evangelical
leaders view Robertson and his comments.

"This kind of statement, by this well known American Christian
leader, is in complete contradiction to the teachings of Jesus
Christ who evangelical Christians believe and seek to demonstrate,"
Geoff Tunnicliffe, International Director of the World Evangelical
Alliance, said in a press release. "Robertson does not speak for
evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of
human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."

"Jesus called for nothing like this, and Pat Robertson sounded more
like one of the radical imams," Os Guinness, a Senior Fellow at the
McLean, VA-based Trinity Forum, "seminar-style forum for senior
executives and political leaders that engages the leading ideas of
our day in the context of faith" said on ABC's World News Tonight.

"The Southern Baptist Convention does not support or endorse public
statements concerning assassinations of persons, even if they are
despicable despots of foreign countries, and neither do I," Southern
Baptist Convention president Bobby Welch said in a Baptist Press
story.

"He has brought embarrassment upon us all," Al Mohler, dean of
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his blog, "With so
much at stake, Pat Robertson bears responsibility to retract,
rethink, repent, and restate his position on this issue. Otherwise,
what could have been a temporary lapse of judgment can become an
enduring obstacle to the Gospel."

World magazine senior editor Marvin Olasky, who is often credited
with coining the phrase, "compassionate conservatism," told MSNBC:

"Well Pat's 75, he's had a live television show for decades, and
sometimes he blurts things out. He doesn't represent evangelicals,
and I hope that people in Venezuela don't think that he represents
the United States...

"Biblically, assassination may be used in times of war, last time I
looked we were not at war with Venezuela. We're supposed to pray for
those in government and those around the world in positions of
leadership, not assassinate them. So he doesn't represent a
Christian view as far as his interpretation of Scripture, and I'm
not sure he represents how many people he represents in the
evangelical community. He ran for President 17 years ago, and at the
peak of his popularity he didn't get a whole lot of votes, so I'm
not sure what clout he really these days either...

"Oh sure there's concern about Chavez, from everything I've read,
he's a dictator, he probably rigged the last election, and so should
really not be in office. But that still doesn't give you a rationale
for going and assassinating him...There are particular ways to act,
pray for those in that situation, hope God will change that
situation, but not take the law into our own hands in a vigilante
style like that. Or, asking our government to do things when we're
not at war with a country.

On CNN, Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of
Evangelicals, criticized the remarks, but said the criticism was
overblown:

"I think you have to understand the context of it. You know his
program has one section of it that's a Christian exhortation, and
then another section where he's a political pundit. And I think what
he was saying was, we have a looming problem down south, and there
are several bad options there. And he's saying maybe the least of
the bad options is to do something about the dictator...

"The First Amendment is wonderful. People have free speech
privileges. He wasn't writing a memo to the White House recommending
a public policy decision. He was not recommending something to the
State Department. He was not exposing himself sexually on the
platform the way Janet Jackson did. Instead, he was having a
political discussion, where they were randomly working with some
ideas. For Jesse Jackson [who called for the FCC to investigate the
remarks] to exaggerate it this way is just as appalling as what Pat
Robertson said, I think. ... We're addressing it, we're not taking
it lightly. Nobody is taking it seriously as a policy issue. So the
system is working. Everything is fine. Nobody's going to assassinate
this man. But we do realize he is a major problem. ... Pat Robertson
was wrong in recommending this. He was wrong in saying it. But he
was not wrong in being able to just openly discuss it the way
political pundits do all the time. Now, if you take his words as
from a religious Christian leader, as a recommendation, then we have
a problem. But I don't think that's what he did.

"And so you have to sort through that just a little bit, but I think
what he was saying was, if our choice is a major war or the some way
to deal with this military dictator, then we need to deal with the
military dictator rather than have another Islam on our hands...What
[Robertson] said was not illegal. What he recommended was illegal."

The Heritage Foundation's Joe Loconte thinks Robertson's critics
have not gone far enough; in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Loconte
suggested that "evangelical leaders would be wise to marginalize
Robertson and his media empire -- publicly and decisively. They
should editorialize against his excesses, refuse to appear on his
television program and deny him advertising space in their
magazines. Board members should threaten to resign unless he steps
down from his public platform."

--- In CLIMB_Outside@yahoogroups.com, "Bridget"
wrote:

Wow, thank you! It would have taken me days to track those down.
It's good to hear that they are denouncing him. I guess the media
just needs to make that clearer.

Bridget