I am always amazed that the biggest mouths in the Evangelical Christian movement seem to be consistently more judgemental and intolerant than Jesus himself. And I consider myself relatively religious.

You shouldn't just ignore him. Both Democrats and Republicans have fringes which are absolutely insane -- the world (and American in particular) would be a far worse place if we followed either of their advice. This blog spends an awful lot of time pointing out the nuttery coming from the far left. Which is fair -- because they're utterly ridiculous. But it's wrong (and counterproductive) just to pretend the nuts on the right don't exist.

I am always amazed that the biggest mouths in the Evangelical Christian movement seem to be consistently more judgemental and intolerant than Jesus himself.

The problem is that the Christians who truly read the Bible and follow Jesus' teachings are not going to start a 2 hour evangelical broadcast. Those Christians are the ones who help individuals, ask that all credit be given to God, and realize that God's work is not accomplished through rhetoric (political or otherwise). That is not to say that Christians can't be in the spotlight, but they are less likely to seek the spotlight like Robertson, Tilton, Bakker, etc.

So a "true Christian" can't employ the most effective way of broadcasting communication to further God's kingdom? 'cause if he did, then he'd only be doing it for self promotion, right? Let's not look at the whole picture and see how much more effective Robertson's organization was in responding to the needs of people in the aftermath of our recent disasters. Afterall, judging a Christian person by the "fruit" of their labors might be too biblical, right?

Pat Robertson is just a man. He's not a god. As such he can make mistakes and can sure put his foot into his mouth sometimes.

In fact, Mr. Robertson has definitely spoken words that I'm glad I didn't utter. But in the case of his response to the community in PA over their attempt at legislating the institutionalizing of the religion of evolution... at that point I thought he was rather pithy.

He didn't call down a disaster or curse upon that community. He simply said that if they are going to continue to reject God, that the next time they are in need, perhaps they could call on the name of Darwin, and perhaps Chuck could help them out.

As for those who are so enamored with the THEORY of Evolution, many of you have become too blind to see how it has morphed from a theory into a religion. Believe me, it takes you a heck of a lot more faith to believe in evolution and the "big bang" than it takes for my entire faith in Jesus.

Somewhere between the 80's and today the word "theory" has been dropped from it's discussion, as if there was some sort of huge discovery, or enough small discoveries to fill all the holes in the theory. However, seeing as how none of us were there to tell witness how it happened, any idea formed about how the Earth & Universe came to being is still in the truest sense of science a THEORY.

Now, if a person questions the slightest bit in the veracity of evolution, they are persecuted in the likes of Galileo and other historic scientists of his day (only now it's done by a new bunch of religious zealots: extreme evolutionists).

You might see it as historic irony. I see it as a case of history simply repeating itself. (Yet another proof that "societal evolution doesn't exist")

It amazes me that anyone saying that evolution is still only a theory, and needs to be taught saying that:

"It's a theory. It's an extensive theory, with lots of facts, and holes too. But in the end, it's a theory."

is somehow tantemount to saying that they are trying to get our government to establish a religion. But in truth couldn't the demanding of teaching evolution to my children in my community's school system as total solid FACT not theory infringe upon my freedom of religion as I raise my family? It feels that way.

My first sentence was absolute and it should have said that those who follow the Bible are not likely to start a 2 hour evangelical broadcast. If you had read the whole comment, you would have seen that I qualified my statement and that I made no mention of "true christians". Those are your words. I do not presume to know the state of anyone's soul.

The fact remains that Christians are admonished to be humble. It's a very rare televangelist who remains humble. As far as judging by the fruits of one's labor, that is God's judgement and not mine. What I do know is that Robertson and most televangelists do not seem to posses the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez, no matter how despicable a person he may be, is not exactly what I would call kindness, gentleness or self-control. One or two such screw-ups, I can understand. As you say, Robertson's just a man. But it seems to be constant with him and James Dobson.

Every aspect of humanity has it's fringe.

Name a human category of "type" and I can name a fringe element, if not some among Ultimate Fringe Elements. Pat Robertson is fringe, yes, but so is Howard Dean. For every single 'fringe' among human category/type, there are hundreds if not more of exemplary, wonderfully intelligent, superior individuals in the same category/type.

It's just that the fringers get the attention, and are most discussed. There's not a lot of heat in conversations that focus on goodness, greatness, how smart someone else is.

Well said D.Dore'

Old Pat is a piece of work.