I don’t have any argument with the premise that causes you to come to the conclusion you have. I was raised in Joplin, Missouri, and I remember Roberts.
While I wasn’t an adherent by any stretch of the imagination, I watched enough of his presentations to come to the conclusion he was a fraud (IMO).
His constant calls for more money, and his phony healing sessions (again at least IMO), caused me to see him in a very negative light. Old women patrons of my grandmother’s nursing home would send him off checks. It didn’t sit well with me that they were hoodwinked into doing so.
For what it’s worth, my step-father was an ambulance driver. He stated that he more than once picked up people who WERE NOT healed in Robert’s sessions, and when he did they were beyond the point of any rescue on this earth.
Okay, we probably agree on this much. As for his message, I don’t disagree with you.
Now, does that mean that every kid who chose Oral Roberts University should be a political untouchable? Does it mean that vast numbers would refuse to vote for them?
I may be wrong, but I don’t thing that’s true. It’s certainly a point thinking people can disagree on, but I’m not convinced that she would be untouchable.
Look, if folks will vote for a guy who sat there and listened to Jeramiah Wright for twenty years, I think they can vote for someone who is a good person, and may have made a poor choice for graduate school earlier in their life.
What would be most important to me, is that they had a firm grip on what dangers face this nation
Look, we’ve had excellent practicing Christians who have been disasters as president. Jimmy Carter comes to mind. I’m not convinced individual personal doctrinal dogma is transferred to the nation by one of these individuals.
I don’t think Bachmann would be a threat of sorts if she was elected. I see it as just the reverse.
I appreciate your comments. I’m not seeking to discredit your thoughts, because I can understand why you voiced them. In the end, I’m not convinced the negative aspects you touched on would pan out.
Take care.
One thing I think we can agree on is that there is a double standard on how the press reports on Democrats and Republicans (particularly conservative Republicans).
They downplayed Obama & Wright (ignored might be a better word). I have no doubt they would do just the opposite when it comes to Bachmann & Oral Roberts. Not only would they focus on it, they would beat it like a drum.
Fair? No, but that’s the world we live in.
The other thing I think we can agree on is that consrvatives hold themselves to a higher standard than liberals do.
Liberals glady ignored any questions about Wright, because that’s just what they do—brush everything under the carpet and say “move along, nothing to see here.”
I don’t see conservatives doing that. They’ll examine the Oral Roberts connection to see if there is anything here.
Again, fair? No, but that’s just the way it is.
I don’t think this makes Bachmann untouchable (any more than Romney being a Morman makes him untouchable), but it’s part of the overall picture of Bachmann that people will build.