Evangelical Christians | Pat Robertson | Video | Wisconsin

Pat Robertson 'Disgusted' By Courts Attacking Christians: VIDEO

Pat Robertson

On Monday the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that Milwaukee, Wisconsin's Elmbrook School District could not hold its graduation ceremonies at an evangelical Christian church. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy justified the ruling by stating that while adults are free to leave the room in social settings when they encounter disagreeable speech, students at a graduation are a captive audience and that holding a public school graduation at a church violates the Constitution. The school district appealed and the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal.

Cue Pat Robertson and his entitled, crazy indignation that somehow links it all to homosexuality because of course he does. Said Robertson:

The American people wouldn’t have voted in homosexuality, but the courts did; the American people wouldn’t have voted in same-sex marriage, but the courts did; the American people wouldn’t have given up on the Ten Commandments and prayer in schools, but the courts insisted on it. A few unelected judges, just a few, have distorted the history of our nation to give us something that we never intended to have, and something has got to be done about it.

You can listen to Robertson speak for himself AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. The American people DID vote for homosexuality in the last election. We went 4 for 4 in the state votes.

    Posted by: Richard Harney | Jun 20, 2014 9:47:48 AM


  2. Slight edits for accuracy. Suggest: "On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Seventh Circuit ruling that Milwaukee, Wisconsin's Elmbrook School District could not hold its graduation ceremonies at an evangelical Christian church. The decision not to hear the school district's appeal contrasts somewhat with another decision released last month, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy upheld invocations at town council meetings, since adults are free to leave the room in social settings when they encounter disagreeable speech. Monday's decision suggests that the Court continues to feel that students at a graduation are a captive audience and holding a public school graduation at a church violates the Constitution."

    Posted by: AC | Jun 20, 2014 9:56:08 AM


  3. He personally gave up on the ten commandments years ago as did most "christians".

    Posted by: TBD | Jun 20, 2014 10:09:03 AM


  4. We could always just get some lions...

    Posted by: Sean | Jun 20, 2014 10:10:23 AM


  5. Mr. Robertson and all those who cry about "activist judges" should take a refresher course in high school civics. They'll be reminded that the Founding Fathers created the judiciary branch of government for a reason ... to make sure that legislators, governors, attorneys general and, yes, VOTERS don't overstep their Constitutional boundaries. The judges are doing their job ... Robertson and his ilk are simply sore losers.

    Posted by: DiatribesAndOvations | Jun 20, 2014 10:15:19 AM


  6. Since when does a school not have a gym, football field or auditorium to hold a graduation ceremony?? Where have they been holding the ceremonies at before? Because they're wasting tax dollars taking this to court I'm sure if they'd tried they could have found a solution on school property!

    Posted by: Alan | Jun 20, 2014 10:18:19 AM


  7. Robertson should get over the ten commandments and address what christianity should be about - and that is the sermon on the mount. He is lost in an old testament world.

    Posted by: robertL | Jun 20, 2014 10:31:32 AM


  8. How is this passé old f*ck not dead yet?

    Posted by: Ed | Jun 20, 2014 10:40:52 AM


  9. Why do we pay attention to the Crypt Keeper?

    Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Jun 20, 2014 10:49:35 AM


  10. he's like one of those cowardly mullahs calling for jihad, hoping one of the crazies that follow him will do "something" crazy.

    Posted by: Mark | Jun 20, 2014 11:01:32 AM


  11. Somethings got to be done about it, alright.

    Die already, that would help big time.

    Posted by: johnny | Jun 20, 2014 11:08:06 AM


  12. Let's hang the judges !

    And when all the judges are gone who will enforce and uphold the laws ?

    Does this oaf just say every piece of visceral bigotry that comes into his puny brain ?
    Now this bag of wind gets to speak for the American people......he used to speak for god, so he may be lowering his expectations.

    As for a nation 'guided by biblical principles'......wouldn't that be the same as a Sharia dictatorship ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jun 20, 2014 11:23:12 AM


  13. I'm disgusted he's still alive.

    Posted by: Bollox | Jun 20, 2014 11:48:16 AM


  14. One gets sooooooo tired of this "unelected judges" nonsense from evangelicals and right-wing-nuts. Pat, honey, it's about civil rights. That's all. You want to practise your ridiculous scuzzy wing-nut religion, go ahead. No one is stopping you or the millions of evangelical effluvia and fundamentalist filth who subscribe to such scuzzy wing-nut religious beliefs. But, Pat, dear, keep your scuzzy wing-nut religion to yourselves. You don't get to impose it on the rest of us. THAT's constitutional, Pat, and if you can't handle that reality, I suggest you and the rest of your scuzzy wing-nut followers emigrate... say, to Russia. They'd love to have ya!

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jun 20, 2014 1:00:41 PM


  15. Why hasn't Pat's imaginary friend-in-the-sky called him home yet?

    Posted by: Mark Alexander | Jun 20, 2014 2:12:59 PM


  16. Meanwhile, millions continue to be disgusted that Pat Robertson represents christians, while the rest of us just call him out on his privilege. Again.

    Posted by: JT | Jun 20, 2014 2:56:50 PM


  17. The American people wouldn't have "voted in" desegregation, either, but I'm glad there were enough activist judges (and other liberals) around to do it.

    There are a lot of things about this country in the 21st century that the "founding fathers" would not have addressed or intended, because (a) they were mostly racist and sexist wealthy land-owners, and (b) they could never have imagined how different the world would be several centuries after their time.

    Should that mean that as a country, we should not make improvements to our policies and laws as our society changes?

    Only if you're a mostly dead crusty old conservative mummy, I guess.

    Posted by: StudioTodd | Jun 20, 2014 5:23:06 PM


  18. The American people wouldn't have "voted in" desegregation, either, but I'm glad there were enough activist judges (and other liberals) around to do it.

    There are a lot of things about this country in the 21st century that the "founding fathers" would not have addressed or intended, because (a) they were mostly racist and sexist wealthy land-owners, and (b) they could never have imagined how different the world would be several centuries after their time.

    Should that mean that as a country, we should not make improvements to our policies and laws as our society changes?

    Only if you're a mostly dead crusty old conservative mummy, I guess.

    Posted by: StudioTodd | Jun 20, 2014 5:23:30 PM


  19. The American people wouldn't have "voted in" desegregation, either, but I'm glad there were enough activist judges (and other liberals) around to do it.

    There are a lot of things about this country in the 21st century that the "founding fathers" would not have addressed or intended, because (a) they were mostly racist and sexist wealthy land-owners, and (b) they could never have imagined how different the world would be several centuries after their time.

    Should that mean that as a country, we should not make improvements to our policies and laws as our society changes?

    Only if you're a mostly dead crusty old conservative mummy, I guess.

    Posted by: StudioTodd | Jun 20, 2014 5:23:46 PM


  20. Here's looking forward to more of Robertson's disgust. It makes me smile.

    Posted by: Randy | Jun 20, 2014 5:42:30 PM


  21. Didn't I see this old man at the march on Washington yesterday? I think that was him...you know, with the young twink. They just couldn't stop kissing. I loved it!

    Posted by: Paul B. | Jun 20, 2014 7:02:43 PM


  22. @ Mark Alexander : Pat is not going to be "called home" any sooner than absolutely necessary - would you want that crazy character running around your house? Even if the "house" is a mansion with gobs of servants, Pat could single-handedly cause a servants' revolt where they all quit en masse just to avoid having to listen to him.


    Posted by: Bill | Jun 20, 2014 8:31:28 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Flight Attendant Replaces Safety Announcement With Hilarious Sassy Speech: VIDEO« «