Quoted: Quoted: What should be done about Chavez's sponsoring of communist insurgency and cocaine production/smuggling in Colombia and Bolivia? Face it..the ONLY way to have long term peace and stability in South America is if the USA colonize ALL of it. Some people just gotta be controlled.  Woirked for Hong Knog. SGatr15

There you go. That was my original plan -- take one country every five or ten years or so and transition them into being US states. Entirely voluntarily, of course - they would have to have an overwhelming majority vote in favor to qualify, and there would have to be a transition period where they went from their laws to ours. It would solve a lot of problems.

Quoted: Which is why China and Iran want nukes so bad.

Let's not leave out our deistinguished friends the North Koreans.

Quoted: Face it..the ONLY way to have long term peace and stability in South America is if the USA colonize ALL of it.

Oh, good grief! Can you imagine Argentina as a STATE?
Hi, Deimos!

Quoted: Quoted: That was in response to a comment about the use of the word "mullahs". If Pat is saying things like that, then "mullah" is about the nicest thing you could say about him. Except, of course, that Robertson doesn't have a few battalions of idiots willing to go do his bidding. Unlike the REAL mullahs!

I can only surmise that you haven't been reading these forums long.

Robertson is an asshat, a moron, a loon, and several other negative adjectives. He is NOT a mullah. He is NOT advocating killing someone simply because he doesn't believe in Christ. He's called for the assassination of a direct and growing theat to this country and this hemisphere. Big difference.

He is advocating killing someone because of what they said. That's better?

I don't know about you, but "mullah" to me could mean just about any religious leader who got way out of touch with reality. It indicates a religious kook that advocates violence.

Quoted: By that standard, we would be at war with a good chunk of the entire world, most of the time.

No, we wouldn't.

France, for instance, is lead by a bunch of idiots. But those idiots are not cozying up to Iran and making threats against us like Chavez is. Chavez' bedfellows and his control of oil resources make him a credible threat, whereas someone like Mugabe isn't able to do very much to the US.

Lots of folks may hate us.

We just need to focus on the people who can actually hurt us.

Quoted: You are trying to compare Christians who want to erradicate evil to Muslims that kill innocents.

No I'm not.  I'm comparing Pat Robertson's behavior to, say Omar Bakri Mohammed.

Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians does he?  Neither does the guy the Brits kicked off the island.

Quoted: Quoted: Face it..the ONLY way to have long term peace and stability in South America is if the USA colonize ALL of it. Oh, good grief! Can you imagine Argentina as a STATE? Hi, Deimos!

No, not states...COLONIES.  They can have (some) freedom but no voting rights, because they will STILL be treated better under us than where they are now.

Sgatr15

Sgtar15

Quoted: Quoted: By that standard, we would be at war with a good chunk of the entire world, most of the time. No, we wouldn't. France, for instance, is lead by a bunch of idiots. But those idiots are not cozying up to Iran and making threats against us like Chavez is. Chavez' bedfellows and his control of oil resources make him a credible threat, whereas someone like Mugabe isn't able to do very much to the US. Lots of folks may hate us. We just need to focus on the people who can actually hurt us.

It seems to me that we are still looking for the people who actually HAVE hurt us.

Quoted: It's hard to believe anyone would stick up for Pat Robertson after his 9/11 comments. I don't think I've seen anyone seriously claim that the Bible condones political assassination before.

"5 But when the children of Israel cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them: Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. By him the children of Israel sent tribute to Eglon king of Moab. 16 Now Ehud made himself a dagger (it was double-edged and a cubit in length) and fastened it under his clothes on his right thigh. 17 So he brought the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. (Now Eglon was a very fat man.) 18 And when he had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who had carried the tribute. 19 But he himself turned back from the stone images that were at Gilgal, and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.”
He said, “Keep silence!” And all who attended him went out from him.
20 So Ehud came to him (now he was sitting upstairs in his cool private chamber). Then Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he arose from his seat. 21 Then Ehud reached with his left hand, took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. 22 Even the hilt went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the dagger out of his belly; and his entrails came out. 23 Then Ehud went out through the porch and shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them.
24 When he had gone out, Eglon’s servants came to look, and to their surprise, the doors of the upper room were locked. So they said, “He is probably attending to his needs in the cool chamber.” 25 So they waited till they were embarrassed, and still he had not opened the doors of the upper room. Therefore they took the key and opened them. And there was their master, fallen dead on the floor.
26 But Ehud had escaped while they delayed, and passed beyond the stone images and escaped to Seirah. 27 And it happened, when he arrived, that he blew the trumpet in the mountains of Ephraim, and the children of Israel went down with him from the mountains; and he led them. 28 Then he said to them, “Follow me, for the LORD has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand.” So they went down after him, seized the fords of the Jordan leading to Moab, and did not allow anyone to cross over. 29 And at that time they killed about ten thousand men of Moab, all stout men of valor; not a man escaped. 30 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest for eighty years."

Judges 3

Quoted: It seems to me that we are still looking for the people who actually HAVE hurt us.

And looking for the people who WANT to hurt us in the future.

If someone had put a bullet in Osama's head in 1993, it would have saved us a fair ammount of trouble.

Quoted: Quoted: It's hard to believe anyone would stick up for Pat Robertson after his 9/11 comments. I don't think I've seen anyone seriously claim that the Bible condones political assassination before. "5 But when the children of Israel cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them: Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. By him the children of Israel sent tribute to Eglon king of Moab. 16 Now Ehud made himself a dagger (it was double-edged and a cubit in length) and fastened it under his clothes on his right thigh. 17 So he brought the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. (Now Eglon was a very fat man.) 18 And when he had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who had carried the tribute. 19 But he himself turned back from the stone images that were at Gilgal, and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” He said, “Keep silence!” And all who attended him went out from him. 20 So Ehud came to him (now he was sitting upstairs in his cool private chamber). Then Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he arose from his seat. 21 Then Ehud reached with his left hand, took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. 22 Even the hilt went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the dagger out of his belly; and his entrails came out. 23 Then Ehud went out through the porch and shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them. 24 When he had gone out, Eglon’s servants came to look, and to their surprise, the doors of the upper room were locked. So they said, “He is probably attending to his needs in the cool chamber.” 25 So they waited till they were embarrassed, and still he had not opened the doors of the upper room. Therefore they took the key and opened them. And there was their master, fallen dead on the floor. 26 But Ehud had escaped while they delayed, and passed beyond the stone images and escaped to Seirah. 27 And it happened, when he arrived, that he blew the trumpet in the mountains of Ephraim, and the children of Israel went down with him from the mountains; and he led them. 28 Then he said to them, “Follow me, for the LORD has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand.” So they went down after him, seized the fords of the Jordan leading to Moab, and did not allow anyone to cross over. 29 And at that time they killed about ten thousand men of Moab, all stout men of valor; not a man escaped. 30 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest for eighty years." Judges 3

An instance in the bible is tantamount to a blanket approval?


Seriously, nobody here would have a problem with a political figure stating support for the assination of Chavez. But Robertson purports to be a spiritual leader. He should just STFU on matters like this.

Quoted: Quoted: Chavez is an enemy of the US. He is conspiring with our enemies. He is doing almost the same stuff that Mugabe has done. What is wrong with posing the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet in his head? So the Ten Commandments say something like "Thou shalt not kill except if the guy has different political ideas."  Is that correct?

The God of the OT that gave those 10 Commandments had absolutely no problem with killing in war...even killing women and children in war.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's hard to believe anyone would stick up for Pat Robertson after his 9/11 comments. I don't think I've seen anyone seriously claim that the Bible condones political assassination before. "5 But when the children of Israel cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them: Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. By him the children of Israel sent tribute to Eglon king of Moab. 16 Now Ehud made himself a dagger (it was double-edged and a cubit in length) and fastened it under his clothes on his right thigh. 17 So he brought the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. (Now Eglon was a very fat man.) 18 And when he had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who had carried the tribute. 19 But he himself turned back from the stone images that were at Gilgal, and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” He said, “Keep silence!” And all who attended him went out from him. 20 So Ehud came to him (now he was sitting upstairs in his cool private chamber). Then Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he arose from his seat. 21 Then Ehud reached with his left hand, took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. 22 Even the hilt went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the dagger out of his belly; and his entrails came out. 23 Then Ehud went out through the porch and shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them. 24 When he had gone out, Eglon’s servants came to look, and to their surprise, the doors of the upper room were locked. So they said, “He is probably attending to his needs in the cool chamber.” 25 So they waited till they were embarrassed, and still he had not opened the doors of the upper room. Therefore they took the key and opened them. And there was their master, fallen dead on the floor. 26 But Ehud had escaped while they delayed, and passed beyond the stone images and escaped to Seirah. 27 And it happened, when he arrived, that he blew the trumpet in the mountains of Ephraim, and the children of Israel went down with him from the mountains; and he led them. 28 Then he said to them, “Follow me, for the LORD has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand.” So they went down after him, seized the fords of the Jordan leading to Moab, and did not allow anyone to cross over. 29 And at that time they killed about ten thousand men of Moab, all stout men of valor; not a man escaped. 30 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest for eighty years." Judges 3 Oh Bible Quotes for Evil-Okay Will Pat back sending in special forces to grab hot Iranian women off the streets so we can screw them, and if we don't like them give 'em the heave ho? Deuteronomy 21 10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

You guys need to get out of the old testament and into the new.

Quoted: An instance in the bible is tantamount to a blanket approval?

The instance in the Bible shows that when a leader makes himself a threat, the leader can be taken out.

The Bible condemns killing INNOCENT people. Not those whose stock and trade are in being a threat.

Seriously, nobody here would have a problem with a political figure stating support for the assination of Chavez. But Robertson purports to be a spiritual leader. He should just STFU on matters like this.

So it isn't the message that is objectionable, but the messenger? Those who are spiritual leaders are not supposed to have or express opinions about politics or world events?

Hardly.

Quoted: Remember it when gas is $20 a gallonnon-sequitur:  Gas prices shouldn't be a legal reason to invade countries and Chavez is sending guerrillas all over South America AND HERE to spread glorious revolution. Hitler was elected, too, you know. So was Hussein, with 100% of the vote! So has Castro! [ Let's hear it for free elections! Get your family out while you still can. Trust me.

When Hitler invaded Poland--it was GAME ON.  
When "Che" walked into the Bolivian jungle--it was GAME ON.
The lesson here is that if you fuck with the sovereignty of another nation you'd better be prepared to answer for it.
Once Chavez starts sending guerillas all over South America AND HERE--it's definately GAME ON.
But he hasn't and it isn't.  All that is going on is that his popularity is rising due to the perceived threat of external forces.


Chavez is consolidating power and we'll see how smart he really is.  If he plays it cool and keeps is attacks on a purely rhetorical level, he's good to go.  But, if he becomes a power-junkie like Hitler/Stalin/Mao and their ilk, he'll mess up and do something that truly deserves international action.

At this point in the game, the only folks that have any right to be working on getting rid of Chavez are the Venezuelan people.  And at this point in the game, I might add, it would be premature  for a Venezuelan to put a bullet in  his head.
If he manages to hold on to the presidency in 2006 through illegal election practices in 2006, his contract with the people would be null and void and then it wouldn't be premature for a Venezuelan to put a bullet in  his head.

At least that's how I look at things

Quoted: I can only surmise that you haven't been reading these forums long.

You would be wildly incorrect.

He is advocating killing someone because of what they said. That's better?

No. It's wrong. He's advocating killing someone because of what he's DOING.

It indicates a religious kook that advocates violence.

Against innocents? I'd probably agree with you.

Against tyrants? Nope.

Quoted: Neither does the guy the Brits kicked off the island.

It's true, too!

Quoted: Quoted: I'm ok with using assassination as a tool of state.  I'm ok with someone voicing that opinion on national television. I'm not ok with a preacher voicing such an opinion from the pulpit, which is all his show is for him.   Right message, wrong place and person. So, if the leader of France decides that GWB is just too much of a pain in the ass, then you would be OK with him calling a hit on GWB? IIRC, the idea was dropped by the US Government some time ago because other people might think it is a good idea, too.

It was outlawed by executive order 12333 and I have maintained and will always maintain that assassination is a tool of the state.    We targetted Khadaffi and Saddam with bombs, how is a rifle any different?

Quoted: All the good stuff is in the Old Testament

The Penguin's got a point!

Allow me to reciprocate:

Quoted: So it isn't the message that is objectionable, but the messenger?

DING! DING! DING! DING!

Somebody gets it!

Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that we are still looking for the people who actually HAVE hurt us. And looking for the people who WANT to hurt us in the future. If someone had put a bullet in Osama's head in 1993, it would have saved us a fair ammount of trouble.

Once again, words alone are never an excuse for violence under any US or international law. I might also add that it would encourage other countries to use the same tactic against GWB. You put a target on his back when you do stuff like this. If he kills Chavez, then what is to keep the Chavez supporters from putting a hit on GWB, and feeling perfectly justified in doing so?

Now, if you have some actual evidence that he has committed a warlike act against us, that's a different story.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody that wanted to align themselves in a civilized and morally straight manner would take the first step as to call Robertson what he is - a wacko and a CHINO (CHristian In Name Only).

Okay. He's a wacko and a CHINO (CHristian In Name Only).

He's still right on Chavez.

YUP

Quoted: Allow me to reciprocate: Quoted: So it isn't the message that is objectionable, but the messenger? DING! DING! DING! DING! Somebody gets it!

No, you missed it. There are two parts here:

1) The message is nuts.

2) The guys speaking it is nuts.

The proof of the second proposition is the first proposition.

Quoted: Allow me to reciprocate: Quoted: So it isn't the message that is objectionable, but the messenger? DING! DING! DING! DING! Somebody gets it!

yup

"he needed killing" is a justifiable defense in Texas, but generally clergy don't need to use it

Quoted: No, you missed it. There are two parts here: 1) The message is nuts. 2) The guys speaking it is nuts. The proof of the second proposition is the first proposition.

Item 2) is true. I knew that way back in 1980.

Item 1) is not. Chavez is a rising and very real threat, and should be taken out, overtly or covertly, ASAP, before we have to send out troops into Venezuela in 2015.

Quoted: Quoted: By that standard, we would be at war with a good chunk of the entire world, most of the time. No, we wouldn't. France, for instance, is lead by a bunch of idiots. But those idiots are not cozying up to Iran and making threats against us like Chavez is. Chavez' bedfellows and his control of oil resources make him a credible threat, whereas someone like Mugabe isn't able to do very much to the US. Lots of folks may hate us. We just need to focus on the people who can actually hurt us.

Let's see if we can clarify one point here. His "control of oil resources make him a credible threat."

In other words, if he refuses to sell us oil, or raises his prices beyond what we think is reasonable then we can kill the guy? We can whack people so you can have cheap gas?

Quoted: Quoted: Allow me to reciprocate: Quoted: So it isn't the message that is objectionable, but the messenger? DING! DING! DING! DING! Somebody gets it! No, you missed it. There are two parts here: 1) The message is nuts. 2) The guys speaking it is nuts. The proof of the second proposition is the first proposition.

I disagree, that guy needs to go.   It would be nice if his own people did it, but if he steps over the line (and some say he already has) then we have every right  to retroactively abort him in the 160th odd trimester.

Quoted: "he needed killing" is a justifiable defense in Texas, but generally clergy don't need to use it

Probably so.

I just think everyone is wrapped up in this because of the messenger and because it gives yet another opportunity to practice the one brand of bigotry still allowable in America.

If John Kerry had said this, he'd be touted as a brilliant strategic thinker.

Oh, and I'd agree with HIM, too, if he did ever manage to kick-start his brain and actually say it.

Quoted: Quoted: No, you missed it. There are two parts here: 1) The message is nuts. 2) The guys speaking it is nuts. The proof of the second proposition is the first proposition. Item 2) is true. I knew that way back in 1980. Item 1) is not. Chavez is a rising and very real threat, and should be taken out, overtly or covertly, ASAP, before we have to send out troops into Venezuela in 2015.

So how do we determine that someone is a big enough threat to kill him?

Does he have any nuclear weapons? Is he likely to invade the US? Was he involved in 9/11? Is there any real proof that he is anything but just another South American blowhard?

Quoted: Let's see if we can clarify one point here. His "control of oil resources make him a credible threat." In other words, if he refuses to sell us oil, or raises his prices beyond what we think is reasonable then we can kill the guy? We can whack people so you can have cheap gas?

"Cheap gas"?

That's all you think this is?

Sorry, but if that's all you think this is about, then I'm afraid you need far more education than I can provide you online.

Quoted: That can't be good for his ministry.   Pat's an asshat, but I agree with him on this issue. ETA:  I just re-read the last two lines of the story, PAT IS A FRICKIN LOON.

+1

Quoted: <snip> then we have every right  to retroactively abort him in the 160th odd trimester.

That gets the feminists on board!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Allow me to reciprocate: Quoted: So it isn't the message that is objectionable, but the messenger? DING! DING! DING! DING! Somebody gets it! No, you missed it. There are two parts here: 1) The message is nuts. 2) The guys speaking it is nuts. The proof of the second proposition is the first proposition. I disagree, that guy needs to go.   It would be nice if his own people did it, but if he steps over the line (and some say he already has) then we have every right  to retroactively abort him in the 160th odd trimester.

Why? Other than shoot off his mouth when he shouldn't, what did he really do?

If you want to kill people because they said something stupid, you would probably wipe out most of this board.

Quoted: Quoted: Let's see if we can clarify one point here. His "control of oil resources make him a credible threat." In other words, if he refuses to sell us oil, or raises his prices beyond what we think is reasonable then we can kill the guy? We can whack people so you can have cheap gas? "Cheap gas"? That's all you think this is? Sorry, but if that's all you think this is about, then I'm afraid you need far more education than I can provide you online.

Well, if there is that much evidence that he was involved in 9/11 or anything else, then it shouldn't be hard to provide just a bit of it.  You know, the internet is full of things.

FWIW, I think Robertson is a nutcase in general, but he's right about Chavez.  We should take that Commie mf'er out ASAP.

Will one of Pat's critics please explain to me why assassination is wrong but war is o.k.?  Or are Christians not suppossed to go to war either?    

Quoted: FWIW, I think Robertson is a nutcase in general, but he's right about Chavez.  We should take that Commie mf'er out ASAP.

If we are taking out people because they are commies, then we would have killed a good number of the latin american presidents over the last fifty years, including probably half of the ones in Bolivia. I am not sure what good that would have accomplished. You don't change the country by taking one guy out.

But, what did he do other than shoot off his mouth? Is he attempting to deliver nuclear weapons to Miami or something?

Quoted: Will one of Pat's critics please explain to me why assassination is wrong but war is o.k.?  Or are Christians not suppossed to go to war either?

Under the US Constitution, war requires sufficient justification that the Congress will vote to go to war. Such as with WWII, where we were attacked.

Assassination is just killing people because you don't like them.

Personally, I think Christian leaders should walk in the steps of Christ. I never read where he advocated war, or assassination.

Quoted: Well, if there is that much evidence that he was involved in 9/11 or anything else, then it shouldn't be hard to provide just a bit of it.  You know, the internet is full of things.

I don't know who made that claim, but I sure haven't, and I don't need to to maintain my position.

He has actively allied himself with Castro. He has called for revolution. He has called for alliances with our enemies. He is supporting insurrections in neighboring countries. He is oppressing his own people. He has threatened to cut off our oil (which, BTW, makes our country go, which is far more important than "cheap gas").

He sounds a lot like Castro did while he was some asshole punk fighting in the mountains of Cuba.

How many people wish we'd taken HIM out back then? I can mention a few relatives who are well-aquainted with Castro's version of prison. It's not something you'll find in an Amnesty International report, though.

Quoted: Is he attempting to deliver nuclear weapons to Miami or something?

If he could, I bet he would.

Quoted: Personally, I think Christian leaders should walk in the steps of Christ. I never read where he advocated war, or assassination.

Now THAT is a perfectly legitimate argument.

Frankly, I think Christ is either laughing Himself silly or (most likely) crying His eyes out at our collective folly.

Sadly, however, He gave all of us free will, which means some of us aren't going to model our lives after His. The rest of us need to deal with that or risk throwing away the gift of life He gave us and our children.

It must be hard being God, and watching your creation spin so wildly out of control. He's coming, and He's gonna be PISSED!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that we are still looking for the people who actually HAVE hurt us. And looking for the people who WANT to hurt us in the future. If someone had put a bullet in Osama's head in 1993, it would have saved us a fair ammount of trouble. Once again, words alone are never an excuse for violence under any US or international law. I might also add that it would encourage other countries to use the same tactic against GWB. You put a target on his back when you do stuff like this. If he kills Chavez, then what is to keep the Chavez supporters from putting a hit on GWB, and feeling perfectly justified in doing so? Now, if you have some actual evidence that he has committed a warlike act against us, that's a different story.

GWB already has a target on his back.

He has a target on his back because he is the President.

Killing Chavez would not make the bullseye any bigger.

Quoted: GWB already has a target on his back. He has a target on his back because he is the President. Killing Chavez would not make the bullseye any bigger.

But it could very well make it SMALLER.

Take the communist little prick out now before he causes some REAL damage!

Quoted: So how do we determine that someone is a big enough threat to kill him? Does he have any nuclear weapons? Is he likely to invade the US? Was he involved in 9/11? Is there any real proof that he is anything but just another South American blowhard?

If he harbors and cooperates with terrorists (as he IS doing right now with leftist terrorist organizations he gives aid and comfort to, as well as allowing them to operate from within his boarders) then heck yes he is a threat to the US.

He doesn't have to roll tanks into San Antonio to be a threat. All he has to do is let AQ have a place to hide and stay safe.

The Taliban didn't roll tanks into Times Square. They just helped the people who attacked us. And we overthrew them because of it.

Quoted: Quoted: Will one of Pat's critics please explain to me why assassination is wrong but war is o.k.?  Or are Christians not suppossed to go to war either?     Under the US Constitution, war requires sufficient justification that the Congress will vote to go to war. Such as with WWII, where we were attacked. Assassination is just killing people because you don't like them. Personally, I think Christian leaders should walk in the steps of Christ. I never read where he advocated war, or assassination.

There is a huge difference between legal and moral justification for war.  And if we want to get technical, the President has authority to order military actions short of war - such as an assassination.  

I think Christian leaders should walk in the path of Christ as well.  However, I also think that they play the role of a teacher, and should offer moral guidance on tough questions.  Heck, the Catholics have a just war doctrine that goes all the way back to the middle ages.  I get the sense that a lot of Pat's critics want Christians to do nothing more than say things which make them feel warm and fuzzy.  Heck, look at the fit people throw whenever a preacher gives a hellfire and damnation speech.  Christianity isn't all sunshine and happiness.  It deals with tough moral questions about right and wrong, and indicates that there are serious consequneces for disobediance to God's laws.