Hey, a real response! This may be the start of a beautiful friendship. But first, one gripe:
"quotes offered by Mario for worhipful approval..."
You think so, eh? I think you'd be surprised how few people on this forum agree with me on anything. :) I don't care about approval.
"Me: They have kept us in submission because they have talked about separation of church and state. There is no such thing in the Constitution. It's a lie of the left, and we're not going to take it anymore."
..........Columbia, South Carolina, Nov. 14, 1993.)
You: Congress shall make no law with respect to establishment of religion" (or similar language) does mean that power is reserved for non-civil authority. It's fairly tricky to explain. Can you explain it?"
Reserved for non-civil authority? You mean non-governmental? If so, what are you referring to specifically?
The actual words "seperation of church and state" are not in the constitution, granted. It was a part of Jefferson's correspondence. So the question becomes what constitutes a law respecting the establishment of religion? I would suggest that teaching education in schools is tantamount to government sponsored christianity.
"Me: In a similar manner, schizophrenia (split personality) can be a mental disease, but it can also be caused by demon possession."
..........Pat Robertson Answers p. 116.
You: Would you recommend Pat Robertson restate his proposition in light of a better comprehension of the topic, or would you like to strap him to a chair and run electricity through him?"
Well, as much as I would like to see Robertson and all his ilk fry, I couldn't justify doing so. I would like creationists like Pat to present justification for their beliefs that jives with the evidence. That's all.
"Is Mario denying this or just doubting it? Brain typically puts out 20 watts."
True, I wasn't denying that the brain produces an electrical current. I was criticizing Robertson's half thought out opinions (since the brain creates an electrical field, telepathy is possible) Without a hell of a lot of reasoning, this is patently ridiculous.
"I didn't know Swahili was spoken in Western Africa but as far as I know, it's true today
there are more slaves in Islam than in Christianity. Some Arabs have been involved in the slave trade since ancient times. I'm not for slavery, but I'm not arging against Arabs at all; still, the statement is at least largely true."
Calling Islam the religion of the slave traders is insane. The christian leaders didn't complain about it before the civil war, in fact, it was supported. Not to say that Islam has a squeaky clean record, but to say that Islam is a slaver religion and ignore christianity's history with it is idiotic.
"Many Jews are atheists. You could make a case that all dogmatic practitioners of religion or humanism are atheists, since they think there is no question about theology... only the need to obey their version of the world."
Atheist is not a word synonymous with dogmatism (though it can often be a subset of dogmatic beliefs if handled wrong) But Jews are not atheists, the terms are mutually exclusive.
"Me:"These are actually chunks of lung itself being coughed up. I don't understand exactly what it is, but God has healed you right now. Amen."
..........During a "faith healing" session
You: Haven't you ever said anything silly or that seemed silly?"
Not THAT damn silly. :)
"Me:"Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together"
..........On ADL report on Religious Right, page 131
You: Things that also seem to "go together" include
the male urinary and reproductive protuberance but correlation is not causation."
What correlation do you see between homosexuality and satanism? And in Robertson's quote causation is deliberately implied.
"Me:"I know one man who was impotent who gave AIDS to his wife and the only thing they did was kiss."
You: So he doesn't know the scientific sense of the word "know" -- he could pretend to be some of the evolutionists on this forum and have the same disease!"
You sidestepped the question. The issue here (and Robertson's implied scare tactic) is that AIDS is easily spread by innocent people. First of all, the husband would have to have contracted AIDS through a source (whether a dirty needle while shooting up or finding some nice hooker) And then it couldn't have been transmitted through simple saliva. This is everyday knowledge, and Robertson is either showing incredible ignorance or incredible desire to lie in this statement. Vaguely criticizing evolutionists on some mysterious charge does not qualify as a rebuttal. I wish you would be more specific in your arguments, it would make you much easier to talk with.
"Me:"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."
..........On The 700 Club, January 14, 1991
You: Mario thinks you should "have to be nice" I guess."
You find nothing dubious about the idea that everyone who disagrees with Pat is the spirit of the Antichrist? He shouldn't 'have to be nice' to those who disagree, but to compare them to what he believes to be universal evil is psychotic and incendiery.
"Me:"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose."
..........In The Washington Post, June 27,1986
You: Fine points of the law. Your point is not made here. You must show you understand the subtlety or you're just blurring the issue."
Fine points of the law? Fine points? Congress CAN NOT override a supreme court ruling, particularly if they find something to be unconstitutional. The supreme court is the supreme law of the land. Read the constitution. There is no subtlety or blurring here. Robertson is 100%, completely wrong.