You posted that moronic comment immediately after I gave a link to the dictionary definition, which matches my own. Dumbass.
(bolding mine)
The bolded statement is simply false. I strongly suspect that either on the topic of the bible or on the issue of religion, there are no posters on the entire SDMB for whom Robertson “can speak.” His approach to the bible embraces a particular form of literalism that is utterly rejected by all but five to seven Dopers (most of them, atheists). His approach to soteriology, eschatology, sacramentology, exigesis, and most other aspects of Christian belief is held in opposition to the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Christian posters to the SDMB. Making the ludicrous claim that you are all Christian so he speaks for all of you is as baseless as the foolish comments of old Cold Warriors that claimed that Stalin, Trotsky, Allende, Harrington, and the typical college “radical” of the 1960s were “all the same.” It is simpy a way for lazy people who do not choose to examine the real world to put other people in imaginary boxes rather than actually expending the energy to discover what different people genuinely hold to be true.
While I agree with the overall tenor of your post, and have a particular aversion to proselytizing, I have to say that this got my hackles up. If someone who purported to be a good friend, and said he respected my beliefs, then delivered this little speech, I’d be might tempted to show him the door. I think the statement to be both rude and hubristic.
Sorry Tom you miss again. I made the claim and I think you can understand it, that Christians have a lot in common. There are worshipers that believe in snake handling. I would not say that our dopers are snake handlers. But I would never say they are completely unrelated… But I think it is fair to surmise that most Christian sects based on the bible and most famous teachers have much in common. Does Robertson speak for snake handlers. Not directly but his biblical speak would not exclude them. They are part of the huge group that media includes in his being chosen as spokesman. If however you think he only speaks for the 700m club or whatever it is, then keep on thinking it.
Note your own words. The media has decided to choose him as a leader. It has everything to do with quick sound bites and nothing to do with “representation.”
I am sure that you are ready to accept that Bill Ford speaks for you as a Michigander. George W. Bush speaks for you as an American. Right?
The notion that a man who has publicly condemned Catholicism (~25% of U.S. citizens)–even if he quickly backpedalled on his comments–somehow “speaks for” me is ludicrous. All you seem to be saying is that you are willing to buy into the media game of holding up their own chosen lightning rods and then pretending that such flacks are in some way “speaking for” all sorts of other people who share very little with them. If you want to know what Robertson shares with “Christians,” simply recite the Apostle’s or Nicene Creeds. (And even on those topics we would have significant differences of interpretation.) To pretend otherwise is to simply turn off one’s brain and accept whatever drivel flows out of one’s TV.
That would be all well and good, if I were a fundamentalist.
Bush speaks for me as an American. I destest him and his politics. I hate it that he goes in front of the world and represents all of us. But I have to admit it, thats the way it is. I disagree with him on so many levels. However he is the face of America. I am not.
Robertson is the face of Christianity. He is not introduced as leader of a crazy sect. However someday his stupid pronouncements may catch up with him. Apparently his followers, the radio, TV and the mass of Christians have learned to supress their disagreement.
So, it is OK with you (regrettable, but OK) if you encounter a Norwegian, a Brazilian, (in your neighborhood) a Syrian, or some such person and they note that you believe that it was necessary to invade Iraq in order to fight the War on Terror?
They may well believe that. I am part of the country that did so. We did not impeach and we re- elected him. If given the opportunity ,I could explain it was not me. However most did. He is your president too. No matter what that prick does ,his rating stays above 30 percent.
The picture the world gets of America is not me. It is Bush and rampant exploitive capitalism. On a personal level ,I can explain my view, however I dont get a world forum.
The thing is, you’re insisting that Pat Robertson speaks for Lord Ashtar, and that’s just not true. Ashtar himself has said that Robertson doesn’t speak for him. Why won’t you listen even when others speak on his behalf?
Several recent polls have had him below 30%. Even if he were above 30%, what a ringing endorsement. :rolleyes:
The problem here is that Bush’s situation is not analogous to Robertson’s. Bush was elected President by the American people, while Robertson was elected spokesman for Christians by…the media, himself, and possibly some of his congregation. Not the same thing.
By the way, the space goes after commas, not before, like this.
I have explained myself on a personal level, at least as personal as an internet message board can be. For some reason, you’re not listening. Why is that?
I guess if you were simply claiming that there are millions of people who accept Robertson as “spokesman” in the same way that Bush is seen as “spokesman” even if he does not actually speak for any individual, I can understand your intent.
Of course, there is a bit of a problem regarding Robertson in that he is not the leader of Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and a range of other denominations throughout the U.S. under any official capacity and certainly holds no unofficial capacity to speak for groups whom he has actually attacked, (Catholics, most mainstream denominations, Mormons, etc.).
So, even when some guy with a microphone identifies him as a “spokesman” for American believers, you have realize that only 10% of the audience would recognize him as a spokesman and not a foe if you simply took his own Southern Baptist denomination or that only 20% might recognize him if you extended the terms to include all the various religious groups with (vaguely) similar theology.
Unlike the president, he has not been elected at all.
He is an outspoken foe of religious groups that are several times the size of the small group for whom he might be expected to speak.
Anyone who stands outside his own group and recognizes him as a “spokesman” is either obliviously or maliciously not paying attention. He does not qualify as a “spokesman” except among a tiny number of people who believe as he does and some undefined other number of people who really don’t have a clue what they are thinking of.
That pretty much eliminates him as a “spokesman” in any serious fashion. If you wish to claim that you, personally, see him as a spokesman, you need to consider why you would accept a claim that is rooted in ignorance.
When they introduce Robertson on TV and say ,representing the Christian right in America , minus Lord Ashtar who doesnt agree with everything he says. Until then he is the Christian spokesman. You are not. Tom is not.
I did not pick him as representative of all Christians. The media does. That is the point. You can parse over and over what differences you and others have. Try explaining the agreement. It would be more profound and reveal how similar you are…It would be a long list.
Sorry, but I have to call a bit of bullshit if you’re taking it that far. They don’t introduce him as a representative of all Christians. They know better than that, because he has publically condemned a very large portion of them. They introduce him as representing the Christian Coalition. If you take that as meaning all Christians, then you just need to learn more. 
Emphasis mine.
At least you recognize that there are Christians in the U.S. who aren’t members of the Religious Right.
He is not the Christian spokesman, he is merely treated as such by people who need controversy to make their livings.
And our point, which you seem to be unable to understand, is that what the media chooses is not necessarily a basis for any judgment. We are not bound by what they choose.
How the fuck would you know what Lord Ashtar and Pat Robertson have in common? All you know is that they are both Christian. You are not they, and you cannot say what they believe. Lord Ashtar has stated that he is not a fundamentalist Christian, and thus he shares few beliefs with Pat Robertson. The evidence we have of their beliefs suggests strongly that they have many differences.
I’m betting that somebody’s going to pit you soon, and it might just be me.
(bolding mine)]
Only in the minds of the Christian right (as you, yourself pointed out, then chose to ignore your own words) and limited number of very (willfully?) uninformed unbelievers.
This is a silly claim. Based on your example, I will now recognize Ted Nugent as your spokesman.
You might want to try reading the rest of the post, instead of just the first four words. Your response really doesn’t make any sense in the context of the post you’re replying to. For one thing, I wasn’t talking specifically about the Old Testament, I was talking about religion in general, so citing the first commandment is meaningless. For another, I wasn’t arguing that relgion is naturally inclusionary. Indeed, implicit in what I wrote was the recognition that religion can be used divisively. My point was that this divisiveness does not have its roots in religion itself, but in the human psyche, and that absent religion, we still have dozens of other ways of demonizing people who are different than ourselves. And, indeed, seem to invent new ways of doing so almost daily. With the previous point in mind, we come to the final flaw in your post: I argued that divisiveness is an inborn trait in the human species. In disagreeing with that, you pointed to the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament - a book written by human beings. Where do you think the divisiveness of that commandment comes from? God?
Actually, the funniest part of the first commandment is that it doesn’t say there aren’t any other gods…it just says that Yahweh had better be the one you actually worship.
Joe
Why is that funny? There’ve been gods of this and that since Neanderthals.