Comments:Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani for President

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Wall of Separation[edit]

Amazing! Yet another “story” about a religious figure messing in US politics, so much for separation of church and state. And it is only our national complacency, our lack of individual will in the maintenance of our government, that allows these waters to be constantly muddied in this manner. Does god by inference endorse Rudolph Giuliani’s candidacy? Shouldn’t we, as members of an egalitarian democracy, ask the representation from a variety of deities to cover all our bases?

Thomas Jefferson amongst others developed a “Wall of Separation”[1] between these two aspects of social order and cultural organization. Originally the idea was that government should not become involved in the deeply personal matters of religion or the relationship between a man and his god[2]. This wall was intended to prevent traffic in both directions, a critical point that contemporary Americans have completely ignored.

Where else in the world would one be able to find civil governments so deeply influenced by the messages some deity may have passed along to his closest human intimates? How is this sitation working out for the average Joe in any sample Islamic regime?

The balance maintained by this check cannot exist unless the citizens of the country enforce the notion as a matter of personal policy. We own our relationship with our god and we must disregard any attempt to usurp this individual liberty. If I want to know who Pat Robertson votes for President in the next election I’ll visit his church November 9th, 2008. --Wonkothesane 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter, The U.S. Constitution Online, [[1]], November 11, 2007
  2. Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, The Library of Congress, [[2]], January 1, 1802

Gee, thanks for the fancy references. But where does Jefferson's "Wall" prevent people from speaking their mind? Would you remove the right of religious people to vote? You seem to be against their right to free speech. All Robertson did was endorse someone, he is not part of the government in any way. Almost all European countries have parties called things like "Christian Socialists" etc. Should they be banned? --SVTCobra 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between "banning" and tolerance. Jefferson's comments prevent, in the form of a constitutional ban, members of the government from unjustly influencing the electorate by way of law or otherwise. Conversely, these same letters outlined a social system that precluded, by way of individual responsibility, the same kinds of influence exerted by organized religion in the halls of representative government.
This story and others like it have sway beyond the scope of the church in question because someone hasn’t exercised their personal responsibility to moderate what is called “news”. We all have a right to free speech; the point made is that we also have an obligation to protect that very same right by understanding when and where its misuse poisons the well of our democracy. Personal opinion in a sermon is not inappropriate because of the context of the forum it can be heard within. In fact, I would argue that this kind of speech making is expected and just. However, that same sermon rendered as factual reporting via universal distribution channels has moved from its proper venue and cannot be contextualized accordingly.Wonkothesane 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first poster is making a good point in a very bad way. The problem isn't that a preacher has a political opinion, but at a time when the Red Cross was banned from bringing help to New Orleans, the Bush Administration was calling on Americans to help by giving money to a list of faith-based charities with Pat Robertson's on the top of the list. His "church" isn't any real Christian organization but a purely political implement, sustained by the oddest alliances (see below).
And while I'm at it: Christianity was not meant to be a motley assortment of war-mongering spirit-channelling fanatics who thump their Bibles with rage at evolutionists they think misinterpret Genesis while funding their broadcasts with the sale of votive idols of eagles. 05:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but your points have nothing to do with this story. --SVTCobra 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first bad call from this one[edit]

Well, Robertson was the head cheerleader for Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, and we know how that went. He can sure pick 'em... 05:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the "Religious Right" even exist before Reagan?[edit]

Forgive a non-American for not knowing all the gory details of how these wing-nut evangelicals have any political influence, but didn't they used to say their congregations shouldn't vote? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]