Thursday, September 13, 2007

Rev. Robin Meyers Oklahoma's "Pulpit Pundit"

In case you don't know who he is... Reverend Dr. Robin Meyers is the pastor of the Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City and author of "Why The Christian Right is Wrong".
For the last 12 years, Meyers’ sermons have been broadcast in Oklahoma on Sundays at 9:30 am, KOKC AM 1520. The program has become the most listened to religious broadcast in Oklahoma. (according to their website)



Rev. Meyers is a strong advocate for separation of church and state and believes the conservative Christian right has gotten it all wrong by mixing religion and government.
Of course he has no problem mixing the two and injects his own political views on the illegal war, attacks President Bush and all conservatives directly from the pulpit as well as in the classroom where he is a Professor of Rhetoric. (Yes boys and girls, apparently there is such a thing)
So we have a Bush hater who is for separation of Church and State telling people HOW they should vote from his church pulpit and and also at public funded schools. A man who condemns conservatives for using religion and the church to promote a political agenda by using HIS religion and HIS church to promote HIS political agenda.
Separation?
Not so much.
Hypocritical?
Classic.
Meyers also preaches that the apostle Paul was gay and that God/Jesus would never claim there is only one way to heaven as well as deeply thought out questions such as "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" and "War, ...good God ya'll, ...What is it good for? ...Absolutely nothing". Yes, he really said this stuff.

BTW- Jesus did say: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
and perhaps you remember this one- "For God So Loved the World that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believes in HIM shall have eternal life." (John 3:16)

I will answer these other incredibly thought provoking questions for the good Doctor...
1- If they gave a war and nobody came, ...uhh, that would be France. (surrender)
2- War hasn't solved anything except... SLAVERY, GENOCIDE, OPPRESSION, NAZI-ISM... you know, "the little things" that don't matter.

As far as America moving toward fascism due to Bush and conservative Christians... there is a complete and total lack of evidence to support that claim, however there is much evidence to the contrary which I am prepared to go into in great detail... if anyone would like.
Here is a "sermon" from Meyers delivered to students at OU that is revered on the liberal internet scene... and here is Cam Edwards refuting Robin Meyers.

If you plan to attend a church service at the Mayflower Congregational Church... bring your own tin-foil hat and your "VOTE DEMOCRAT" war protest sign.

Donations go straight to the Democrat party in the form of political endorsements from the pulpit in the name of separation of church and state.
-red

Labels: , ,

32 Comments:

Anonymous Jimmy Swagger said...

I used to argue with Robin back before windows on bulliten boards. He had behind a fake name (as we all do from time to time) but in those days the codes told everything so I figured out who and what he was.
He has a hard on for lost causes and hates the thought of a A GOD looking over his shoulder. God is watching him whether he allows it or not. He is just another lazy person feeding at the collection plate.

10:05 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

He has proven that Bush hating is indeed a religion.

10:33 PM  
Blogger Nate said...

So ... how exactly is it a "Christian" thing to call people who disagree with you names? Reasoned, passionate discussion, sure. But calling someone "moonbat" isn't something I can really see Jesus doing.

Either your points speak for themselves or they don't. You're better than a mudslinging name-caller.

1:00 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

I love it when liberals who typically don't even believe in Jesus try and make others react the way they (nonbelievers) think Jesus would react...hilarious.

My points are very clear. and I don't claim to be Jesus... you (like most liberals) mistake being a Christian with actually being Jesus... However being human, I (and you) will very rarely "do what Jesus would do", (according to scripture and personal experience)

I don't call everyone who disagrees with me moonbat or any other name... (ask Oklahoma Lefty if I have EVER called him a moonbat, liar or anything esle except for "wrong" a few times)

I call moonbats... moonbats, people consumed with Bush Derangement Disorder are moonbats, people who are members of the religion of global warming are moonbats, people who want to tell you what you can eat are moonbats, people who tell me that something I said is "not what Jesus would say" are moonbats.

I'm not really all that sure Jesus will be that upset with me for calling a moonbat a moonbat (there are worse words nate). If so, he and I can discuss it later (hopefully much later) and I will gladly accept any punishment...but that is between HE and I... not for YOU or I to decide.

BTW Jesus is a name-caller...and in fact the name he would call both of us is "sinner" (according to Jesus/God)

However, if your point is that by being a sinner (not doing as Jesus might do) I am automatically wrong on the points i made... then you (also a sinner) are wrong as well on whatever point it was that you were trying to make....

But thanks for playing anyway...
-red

9:24 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

oh, I forgot... in case you were wondering, ...people who compare BUSH to Brittany Spears... are moonbats Nate.
lol
www.http://okaycity.com/?p=880

10:02 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

Does it never occur to you that if you have to twist someone's words all around, that your point might not be as coherent as you think? Or that if you have to result to petty insults, that maybe you should rethink your approach?

That was kinda my whole point.

Whatever. You'll probably respond by saying that I'm trying to backtrack or that I hate Jesus or something. Go ahead; it's your blog, man. I prefer to debate intelligently, like a grown up.

10:13 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

easy does it nate... I learned that you go to church so it wouldn't make sense for me to say that you hate Jesus...or God and I am glad to hear that you aren't one of those liberals that loves to quote Jesus (to conservatives) but doesn't actually believe in Jesus... you are in the minority.

I would be glad to discuss any issue you like, but may I suggest that we try and find ONE ISSUE that we agree on and work from there.

If we cannot agree on one single issue, there is not much common ground we can use to build mutual respect for the others view.

Example: I don't agree with Joe Liberman (or Oklahoma Lefty) on much... however we DO agree on what we consider to be the MOST important issue of our lifetime...

we can disagree on the other stuff knowing we have some common ground and are not just "pissing in the wind" so to speak.

Are you willing to consider discussing your joining us in supporting a U.S. VICTORY in Iraq?

Then we can argue over abortion, birth control, murder, gay marriage, immigration enforcement, transfats, global warming and taxes... with all due respect.

BUt if we can't agree on whether America should be successful in a war being waged against America, then the other stuff is moot.

-red

10:36 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

How do you define a U.S. Victory in Iraq?

11:00 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

Okay, hit "publish" too soon.

The reason I ask is that, yes, I support a U.S. Victory in Iraq. I'm just not sure what that looks like at this point, or how long it should take (i.e., how many more people have to die) for that to happen. I'm not sure you can be pro-war AND pro-life.

11:02 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

Now we're getting somewhere nate...

click on the link in the right margin for full details... but here is what I wrote in Dec 2006.
I made it very easy for liberals to understand and agree with.


"Disclaimer: Supporting victory does not mean you believe that victory is assured or that you even believe we are in a war, (or that you like Bush) but does mean that IF we are in a war, and IF victory is possible, that you support said victory. ie: Victory in Iraq.
(I can't make it any easier than that.)

Victory as defined (by President George W Bush) for the purpose of this offer is ..."A free and democratic Iraq that is a friend to America and a partner in the war on terror".

11:09 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

So the question for you is... do you support the idea of a free and democratic Iraq that is a friend to America and partner in the war on terror... or not?

It is a simple yes or no question with no "buts"... so please don't begin with "yes, but..."

11:15 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

I agree that that would be the ideal solution, yes, but I wonder if it's possible.

I worry that we're beating our heads against a wall, stubbornly refusing to give up on something that may never happen, or over which we have far less control than we think.

11:16 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

okay, comment timing:

I must've been writing my comment as you posted your "yes,but" rule, b/c it wasn't on there when I started typing.

So yes.

(But I still have a bunch of BUTs, and I think they're valid, and important. Don't take my "yes" as complete agreement with your viewpoint).

11:20 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

You can be FOR America in Iraq without knowing the outcome nate,
do you know the outcome of a game with your favorite sports team BEFORE they play the game?
One thing is for sure, if one side gives up and quits... they lose.

Every struggle requires beating your head against a wall of some sort, but remember that America has achieved EVERY goal it has stuck to.... and will achieve this one, IF all Americans get behind the effort as a united force.

C'mon nate, you are so close...
"trust the force luke".

11:23 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

America has achieved EVERY goal it has stuck to?

I respectfully submit that history says differently. The Wars on Drugs, Poverty and Vietnam among others.

Also, every goal has a cost; when the cost becomes too high it only makes sense to give it up. That's not defeatism, it's just good judgment.

11:28 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

Way to go Nate, welcome aboard.
as my disclaimer said, it doesn't mean anything except what it means.
YOU SUPPORT A U.S. VICTORY IN IRAQ.

Now, I said, goal it has "stuck to" nate.... we didn't "stick to" (or even try to win) in Vietnam, we waved the white flag and retreated.
There is no war on drugs... you can buy pot, crack or whatever you want within a mile of your house.... wherever you live.
It is against the law, but as you very well know it is not a "real war" by any stretch of the imagination.

But nate, That was the lesson of Vietnam, ..."if you are going to fight a war, fight to win" and stick it out.(or don't fight at all)
Democrats think the lesson was... America can't win, no matter what... so cut and run.

I will be posting a nice piece just for you like I did for Oklahoma Lefty when he "converted" so to speak.

According to the man both liberals and conservatives raved about when he took over, the WAR IS WINNABLE and we are winning.

So stand-up and be proud and don't let anybody tell you America shouldn't win in Iraq.

I've got your back.

-red

11:41 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

See, that's the problem, red. I don't see much evidence to support the idea that we're winning. I'd like us to be winning, sure. That would mean fewer people dying. But I don't feel like any of the reports from the ground really support that. I know that the people I know who've been to Iraq wouldn't say that we are, and most of them think it was a mistake to go in the first place.

See, I think it's misguided to think that most liberals don't think like I do. We'd all like to see a victory in Iraq, because we don't want any more needless death. I just think that sometimes, when the cost is too high, retreat always has to be an option. Any military strategist will tell you that.

11:46 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

that you aren't convince that we ARE winning is fine nate...
I would point to the fact that we captured or killed over 12,000 jihidists in Iraq since January
(1500/month average)
While sustaining casualties of probably less than a hundred...
and considering that there are a LOT more US soldiers (150,000+) combined with Iraqi soldiers and military from over 30 countries than there are jihadists in Iraq... time is running out for them in Iraq that is.

EVERY single returning veteran that I have spoken with (well over 100) has assurred ME that we are doing the right thing, it IS important and that we can and ARE in fact ...winning.

So, have faith nate, go with your instincts and support the victory and pray that you are right.
That's all we've got nate, faith and facts.
And the fact is, we MUST win.

I have enjoyed our discussion and apologize for anything i said that you found offensive or insensitive.

I encourage you to post about your support for victory.

As I said I will do a nice post just for you and your courage to dare disagree with the majority of the left.

Make no mistake about it (go read the comments in my post "support victory" the majority of liberals don't support even the idea of a US victory in Iraq. Go to Okie Funk, Okie Doke, Daily KOS, moveon.org or any Democrat in washington's website.

Again, glad to have you onboard and as Sean Hannity say's... you are a great American.

12:10 PM  
Blogger Nate said...

Thanks, red. The thing is, as I said, I think most liberals feel like I do about this. We want this win; we just don't know if it's possible. Many of us think that retreat might be the sanest thing at this point.

I like that we've come to a place where we can respectfully agree to disagree.

And for the record (not to open a new can of worms), but I didn't rave about Bush when he was elected. But I admit I might be a little unique in that respect. ;-)

Anyway, thanks for the good discussion. Feel free to stop by Okay City anytime; I'll write a post about the war soon.

12:46 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

Now, not so fast Nate,... you keep asserting that most liberals agree with SUPPORTING VICTORY IN IRAQ when the evidence is against you.

61% of registered Democrats believe that George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks or are "not sure" if George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
(see my post "democrats for jihad of the day"... disclaimer for Okielefty)

It is safe to say those people aren't for Bush's war in any way shape or fashion.
The spokespeople for the liberal propgressive movement like moveon.org would also disagree with you.

You, my friend are in rare air.
In the year since i have posted the Liberals invitation to support victory (as described above and in the post) only ONE self described liberal has stepped up... dozens, declined most ignored the offer or ridiculed it... see Rodger A Payne blog.

Anyway, don't sell yourself short, you have risen above petty politics for the good of your country and for that I respect and admire you.
-red

1:48 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

wait a minute... did you say retreat?

WHAT?

VICTORY THROUGH RETREAT... sounds like the French war cry to me.

sorry, nate... just when I thought we were getting somewhere... you have to go and call for RETREAT?

Have you thought at all (obviously not) about what happens in Iraq AFTER we retreat.... what happens to Israel and then Europe and America?

Sorry nate, you can't have it both ways...
either you are for Victory or not... retreat was not a part of the definition of VICTORY that you had already agreed to.
Two minutes later you have to change the deal.

And you wonder why I don't trust liberals with the security of the country?
-red

2:26 PM  
Blogger Nate said...

Good LORD.

This is what drives me crazy about stuff like this. I'm NOT trying to change the game in the middle. It's not fair to accuse me of trying to change the rules in the middle of the game just because I won't agree with you unconditionally. That's dirty pool.

Look: Do I support a victory? Yes. Do I think we should be trying as hard as we can to get there? Yes.

But I do face the possibility that it might not happen. We might be (and it seems to me we are) stuck, and in ANY military campaign, retreat has to be an option at SOME point. You can't take it off the table, lest you end up getting everyone killed.

2:32 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

you said you were crazy,...not me.

allowing for the remote possibility that any sort of retreat is necessary is quite different from supporting retreat NOW.
You said you supported retreat.
I didn't change the rules or hold you to some new rule... I simply stated that you can't have both... Victory while retreating.

we will leave Iraq (for the most part) but will always have a presence there just as we do in many countries on a friendly basis.

You cannot provide the Jihadists with a "retreat" or anything that resembles a retreat. Victory means that we will provide the Jihadists their defeat... by the very nature of the beast.
That is not the official definition but merely an example.
we have already defined what VICTORY IN IRAQ is.
Perhaps I should rephrase the question from Victory or defeat to Victory or retreat?

2:42 PM  
Blogger Nate said...

Perhaps. I just think perhaps it's not quite so clear-cut.

First of all, are we supposed to personally go after every jihadist? Are we going to personally, one-by-one, eliminate every individual who opposes U.S. aims? How long will that take? How many lives is it okay to lose? If we'd just let 50,000 more soldiers die in Vietnam, would that have been a victory? How many lives is America's sense of pride worth, exactly?

I think a lot of the people losing loved ones in Iraq would tell you the victory is determined by how many of our fighting men and women come home alive.

I support the troops. I support the mission, to a degree. What I don't support is stubbornly pursuing the completion of a mission that's likely never going to be accomplished, when it's costing this many lives and this much money. It's unwise, to say the least.

2:50 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

Nate, it is 100% clear-cut. Jihad means war... Islamic fascists (Jihadists) declared war on us over a decade ago. Even if we retreat, the Jihad against America goes on... in fact it gains momentum.

You (and liberals in general) don't seem understand (or don't want to understand) the fact that retreat doesn't end the war (Jihad) it only moves it HERE.

They are not just going to quit and go home and live happily ever after if we "cut and run", on the contrary... we will embolden them to ramp-up the Jihad while America is weak.

Study what THEY say (over and over again) not what I say Nate, do you know what THEY do to infidels like you and me and any non muslim nate?

I appreciate your innocence, but it's not Sept 10 2001 anymore.
They cannot be ignored.

-red

3:03 PM  
Blogger Nate said...

Clearly we disagree. I think the jihadists, while a threat, can be dealt with more effectively by beefing up homeland security, not by fighting a losing (or, at best, stagnating) battle over there.

...and now I've used up a lot of my work day debating you, so I'm going to throw it down for now and get some work done before the weekend starts.

Feel free to take that as a sign of the superiority of your opinion over mine. It's not, of course, but it's your blog, so the last word is yours.

3:10 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

I don't mind spending the time if it helps one person understand why success in Iraq is critical OR to understand that with the American people behind them, there is NOTHING on the face of this earth that our military cannot do.

Having said that, the last word is yours... and your choice of words is
Victory
or
Defeat (i.e. retreat)

It's not really this difficult Nate. Are you afraid of what your friends will say?

3:31 PM  
Blogger Nate said...

I'm not afraid of what anyone will say about me, because it's the internet, and so who cares?

What I am afraid of is this "with us or against us" mentality. So feel free to call me Switzerland, but I feel I've already answered your question and posed a few of my own.

And anyway, Red, it is difficult. It's good to rah-rah the U.S. Military, but reality has to enter into it at some point, and the reality is that the situation in Iraq has absolutely no good answers. Either we leave our guys there until we accomplish our goal, which may take years and will certainly put them in harm's way, or we pull back - maybe not OUT, but at least BACK - and who knows what happens then? No one can predict. It's not so simple as one word over another. There are harsh, horrible, ugly realities here and lives at stake. We can't afford to be cavalier about that. Our soldiers deserve better.

(REALLY AM getting to work now. Turning off AirPort).

3:36 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

First, Without American troops, the Swiss would be under German rule... they can only be the way they are (neutral) BECAUSE of Americans (*and Britt's) who gave their lives protecting them from a country that had NOT even attacked the US.

Again, it is the Jihadists (Islamic radicals) who put forth the "muslim or not muslim" (for us or against us) mentality.. so therefore we are automatically put there, and if you are not muslim they don't say mean things about you or call you names, they cut your throat and make a video of it to recruit more throatcutters to kill more Americans... get it yet Nate?

I'm certainly not being as you say cavalier about anything, I am speaking the truth to you, it is verifiable and easy to prove.
we CAN predict how things will turn out... if we retreat, everyone says it would be a horrific disaster costing perhaps millions of innocent Iraqi lives from the "cleansing" aftermath by the Islamic fascists. Also everyone agrees that, left alone, the jihadists will develop or purchase WMD and WILL use them on the US and major world targets from the base in Iraq.

we can also predict that a US victory would result in a restricted and limited effort by the Jihadists to operate, recruit, train and finance further terrorists acts as well as producing a viable, flourishing member of the world community and ally to the US... and disruption to Iran's hopes of ruling the middle east... and the world.

Do you get it yet nate?

As far as not putting our military in harms way... where do you libs get this one? Why do you think people join the military... please don't repeat the false claims of the left that they are only the poor and uneducated... they join the military to do military stuff... i.e. going into harms way to defend America...
Do you support not sending police into harms way after criminals?
I mean they don't know for sure that someone is guilty, yet they have to go in and arrest them, possibly getting killed in the process.

Your logic just doesn't fly and I suspect most of is is due to influence from your pastor... The Reverend Dr. Robin Meyers... which brings this conversation full circle doesn't it?

If not, you probably never will and never wanted to try.

Best of luck,
see ya' down the road somewhere I'm sure.

4:43 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Wow. That was...slightly painful actually.

I think Nate's initial criticism of your tactics Red mirrior things that I have been saying to you for a couple of years now. I think you both make good points and once the name calling ceased the debate was much more intellegent.

10:55 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Oh and for the record Red, changing the question from Victory or defeat to Victory or retreat would be changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Here is the gist of this discussion (or at least my interpretation of it)...

Red and Nate both want the US to win the war in Iraq. Nate wants victory but is unsure of our chances and is willing to pull out and fight the battle in other ways. Red wants victory but thinks that to accomplish it the US must keep a military presence in Iraq (or at least the Middle East) until all jihadists are killed.

Does that sound about right guys?

11:06 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

Dave, Nate claimed he was for victory, but then afterwards said as long as we "retreat".

The Rules say "no buts" I made it very easy (as you know) to support victory as defined in simple terms by the President himself.

He tried to change the agreement (rules) when he said "but".

You (or he) can't say I'm for victory but support retreat.

You know very well that if we RETREAT as he said, Al Qaeda, Iran, and the world will call it a VICTORY for the terrorists... not America.(and they would be correct)

Typical liberal trying to have it both ways.

Not on my blog.

He just got mad because I called out his pastor... (without knowing it was his pastor) and was bound to not agree with me... even if he wanted to.
-red

11:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home