Robertson and Australian: an Angry God Causes Natural Disasters
Most people learn a bit about science when they attend school. That does not mean they become the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, but most do learn something. Sigh, some seem to have completely missed all of their science classes.
Pat Robertson, for example. Robertson has blamed gays for large snowfalls. Yes he has blamed blizzards on gays. I guess it's like the so-called Flood, but with frozen water and it doesn't actually come close to covering the earth.
This was supposedly to stop gays from "doing something gay." Yes, this god hates "doing something gay" so much that he will screw up everyone's plans to stop someone from going to a Broadway musical. Hey, gays can still watch Glee! Hey, what if someone wanted to go to church, did this god think of that?
Robertson (along with his fellow nutjob, Jerry Falwell) blamed the 9/11 attack on gays, atheists, feminists etc. Robertson blamed hurricane Katrina on the same groups.
Frankly, Pat Robertson is the dumbest person of any fame ever. Nobody comes close. That Snooki woman from Jersey Shore? She is the greatest intellect the world has ever seen, next to Robertson. Well, it seems in Australia they have their own Pat Robertson types. A cyclone in Australia caused a big amount of destruction in Australia and who is blamed? The atheist Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard, of course.
Now, I know it may be hard to imagine here in the U.S. that there the head of a nation who can be an open atheist. Heck, there is one member of the U.S. Congress (out of 535) who states he doesn't have a belief in a god (Peter Starks-CA), but even he isn't flat out stating that he is an atheist.
The leader of a group called Catch the Fires Ministry has stated "It is very sad that this dark chapter in Australia’s history is led by an atheist Prime Minister in Julia Gillard and an openly homosexual Greens leader... both who have no regard for God nor prayer." My opinion, good! It's 2011, it's time we had politicians who have no regard for such things.
If someone wants to pray to their god instead of say, opening a science book, great. But the leader of a nation state isn't there to offer burnt offerings to your god. If someone wants to pray to such a being, go ahead, but don't expect the head of a nation state to do it for you.
Also, don't miss the attack on Green party leader being gay. If there are two things the far religious right (who by no means represents all or most Christians) can't stand, it is gay people and atheists. To these uneducated simpletons, having either of them as leaders in a nation invites destruction or at least disfavor from their deity.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Phat Rob Usome I don't need a gun I got God ta get the job done
Don't need no Lord that's wimpy and passive what we need is a trained Assassin.
Holy wars, earthquakes, strokes and floods God demands the spilling of blood
gonna beat em to death with my 700 club.
gonna beat em to death with my 700 club.
Pushing weights spreading hate Jesus is coming and I just can't wait.
You know I'm right and when I'm done I'm going to make sweet Jesus cum.
kill those liberals judges and the constitution what we need is a Jesus revolution.
So send your money so the lord you don't tempt and don't forget its tax exempt.
He say's a lot of hateful things for a Christian?
80 years old ,maybe I'll outlive him too.
Maybe hold a wake
Invite a few Christian Drunks
I can't believe you're making me defend Pat Robertson, but the story on him blaming the gays for the East Coast blizzard was actually satire:
http://www.chacha.com/topic/snow-storm/news/did-rev-pat-robertson-say-the-blizzard-in-the-northwest-is-because-god-wants-to-stop-people-from-doing-something-gay
I was trying to figure out if it is satire or not. I didn't get any google hits on it being satire. The problem with satire and Pat Robertson, it is simply impossible to know the difference just by reading it. Robertson has said so many increadible stupid things when it came to 9/11, Katrina that it is impossible to know the difference. I will apologize to Robertson by the way, when he apologizes to the people of Liberia for supporting a bloody despot named Charles Taylor.
Jerome McCollom
The list of famous atheist leaders includes some pretty rotten apples. Governments that encourage atheism have had terrible human rights records.
Go down the list, and you will see, with few exceptions, that the worst nations are the least christian ones. The USA has freedom of religion, and the highest standard of living anywhere.
China openly discourages christianity , and suffers from terrible poverty. Same with muslim nations. The descent into poverty can be matched very convincingly with the departure from christian principles.
"China openly discourages christianity "
Yes...... they run a state with no religion because religion is not necessary to run a state.....it gets in the way of sensible policy construction.
It's hilarious that you are willing to accept their cruel human rights abuses, and the abject poverty of those outside the cities in exchange for your Utopian vision.
It's also funny that you don't see the correlation between Christian prosperity and heathen poverty. If you lie to yourself, how will you ever see clearly?
The top two countries in the world in terms of standard of living are Sweden and Iceland.
The belief in a god is 23% in Sweden and 38% in Iceland.
That indicates that and average of almost 70% do not believe in fairies.....except for Tinker Bell ...who is my favorite.
In the US 76% believe in a god yet the US does not make the top ten in living standard.
You noted "the correlation between Christian prosperity and heathen poverty."
The US deficit is 1.4 trillion the US debt exceeds 14 trillion (100% of GDP)
14% of the US population is on food stamps and most states and counties are at or near bankruptcy .....
And the the Christian prosperity fits in exactly where amongst these cold hard facts?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/04/some-14-of-us-uses-food-stamps /
Those nations comprising the top 5, being: Norway; Australia; New Zealand; The U.S.; and Ireland, in their respective Wiki pages, have demographic information which completely debunks your notion.
The following are the top 5 nations, and the religion demographics for each.
Norway: "79.2% of Norwegians were members of the state Church of Norway" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway #Religion );
Australia: "64% of Australians listed themselves as Christian, including 26% as Roman Catholic and 19% as Anglican. About 19% of the population cited "No religion" (which includes humanism, atheism, agnosticism, and rationalism)" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia #Religion );
New Zealand: "Christianity is the predominant religion in New Zealand, held by 55.6 percent of the population with another 34.7 percent indicated that they had no religion." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand #Education_and_Religion );
The U.S.: "According to a 2007 survey, 78.4% of adults identified themselves as Christian." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States #Religion );
Ireland: "In 2006, 86.8% of the population identified themselves as Roman Catholic, 4.8% as Protestant or another Christian religion, 4.2% as non-religious and 2% as non-Christian." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland #Religion )
Now, I'm not saying "High religious population ratio equals high standard of living," as I feel it is far more complex than that; but by the same token I think you were factually incorrect in your obvious conclusion that low religious ratio equals poor financial health of a nation.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Generally statistics can be organized to reflect what ever position one wishes to hangs ones hat on...however my general assertion was and is that % of faith in any religion is in no way coorelate to the extent to which any given nation is prosperous.
It is ludicrus to assert that because you believe that a god smiles on you and our your actions that economic property will be the result.
It cannot be argued that currently the US is on a fast train to nowhere in terms of economics largely the re3sult of the Bush administration. Just as Tunisia was the spark in the middle east so to will the unrest playing out in Wisconsin is a symtom of a far greater problem