Pat may be a loon, but he's our loon

Cathy Young | January 7, 2006

Yesterday, after Pat Robertson's inspired remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke as divine retribution for giving up the Israeli settlements in Gaza, I asked if we can all finally agree that Robertson is beyond the pale. A lot of us, apparently, can: the White House has condemned Pat's remarks as "wholly inappropriate and offensive," and Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, says he is "stunned and appalled that Pat Robertson would claim to know the mind of God concerning whether particular tragic events ... were the judgments of God." But tonight, I was pretty stunned myself when former Congressman-turned-Fox News talk show host John Kasich, subbing for Bill O'Reilly on "The O'Reilly Factor," offered a sort-of defense of Robertson, whom he judged to be guilty only of poor timing.

After offering some mild criticism of Robertson while questioning Christian radio talk show host Janet Folger, Kasich inquired of his other guest, Fordham University media studies chairman Paul Levinson:

John Kasich: Your feelings about this, Mr. Levinson? I mean -- is the media sort of grabbing onto everything Pat says and tries to blow it up? I mean, you saw his statement, right? It wasn't a statement out of some mean guy -- he claims that he was quoting the book of Joel, and if you read the Book of Joel and what it says here -- he's basically saying, it wasn't him, it was something he quoted out of the scripture.

Paul Levinson: I have an enormous amount of respect for the scripture, but when people in our modern age try to apply it literally in a fanatical way, it leads to graceless, absurd statements such as Pat Robertson made. If you think about the fact -- the only other public figure who' commented about Sharon's dying being appropriate in any way is the President of Iran, who's a fundamentalist Islamic nutcase.

John Kasich: (chuckles) You're not trying to compare Pat Robertson to the -- this lunatic over in Iran, are you?

Janet Folger: I hope not.

Paul Levinson: I'm comparing two people who are fundamentalists and who don't seem to have a modern view of the world -- who don't seem to understand that the Prime Minister shouldn't be judged according to scripture when he's on his deathbed.

John Kasich: So let me ask you this, then. I mean -- are you saying that what is written in the Bible cannot be applied today? You said that, you know, what we're doing is trying to apply things too literally -- don't you think that in America today, we don't apply it at all, too much of the time?

Paul Levinson: No, I think we apply it just fine in the United States.

John Kasich: Yeah, but when we look at --

Paul Levinson: We have a diversified --

John Kasich: Yeah, but when we look at problems of character, integrity -- whether it's professional athletes, pop culture, whatever -- aren't you basically saying that, you know, let's modernize the whole book? And I think what Pat Robertson is saying, rightly or wrongly, is -- that book shouldn't be modernized. It ought to reflect what that Old Testament says.

Paul Levinson: I'm not saying that the Old Testament is wrong. I'm saying that the literal application of it to a Prime Minister who is trying to bring peace to his region when he is on his deathbed is a very inappropriate statement.

John Kasich: Fair point. Now, Janet, what I need to know from you is, when Pat does things like this or says things like this -- and I think you would agree, it wasn't the appropriate time. Agree with that? It was just not the right time to be talking about this.

Janet Folger: Look, the time you make statements like that is when you can do something about it -- don't divide the land.

John Kasich: So, inappropriate time. The question is, does Pat sort of undermine the movement when he makes a statement like this -- that he might -- which he says was taken out of context or whatever -- does it undermine the movement, the Christian movement? People say, I'm not gonna listen to that.

Janet Folger: You know -- again, I'm not gonna be another voice to bully up or beat up on PR. He's free to defend himself and he's very capable of it --

John Kasich: Yeah, but I want to know what you think.

Janet Folger: -- but I don't think we should blame him for reading from the bible. And I'll be honest with you -- the way I read the Bible, it talks about -- nations that bless Israel are gonna be blessed, nations that curse Israel are gonna be cursed -- and I'll be honest with you, where I worry about the judgment being cast is that I think we need to look in the mirror -- because we're one of the groups, the nations that actually strong-armed the prime minister into giving up land, making Israel less secure. And --

John Kasich: I got you. Now -- People for the American Way, professor -- you know -- against flag desecration -- they're not like some mainstream group, you know -- they're way out there. It's like they grab everything that Pat says, they monitor everything he says. You're in communications -- have we gotten to the point now in America where, with the blogs and the 24-hour news cycle, you can't say anything? It's going to be analyzed, overanalyzed, taken out of context? Don't you think that's fair?

Paul Levinson: No. Criticism of what public figures say is a crucial part of dialogue in a democratic society, which we have. We don't live in a totalitarian state where religious or political leaders can say whatever they please and they're beyond criticism. Pat Robertson chose to say this in a public forum and I think that he's fair game for criticism. It's not the end of the world that he said it -- I don't think he should be executed, I'm not a fanatic myself --

John Kasich: Yeah, and I wouldn't compare him --

Paul Levinson: Well, it's an indication of what happens you apply in a fanatical, fundamentalist way --

John Kasich: Look, I don't think it's a fanatical way -- it's a reading of the Old Testament -- he has his view, to label it somehow, you know, off the deep end, I don't think is fair. Janet, what I'll say to you is, I know Pat, I like him very much, he's been a great leader. He's got to be a little more careful with how he says things and when he says things.

(The complete transcript of the segment can be found here.)

So, let me see if I'm getting this straight. What Pat Robertson says cannot be labeled as fanatical or "off the deep end," because his views are rooted in his reading of the Old Testament. And, of course, you can't possibly compare him to "this lunatic over in Iran," whose views are rooted in his reading of the Koran.

And no, I'm not saying that there's no difference between Pat Robertson and fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. Pat isn't urging people to strap on explosives and go blow up the infidels, nor is he calling for unchaste women to be stoned to death. But, just out of curiosity, if Pat did call for the stoning of adulteresses, would Kasich consider that "fanatical" and "off the deep end," or not? After all, that's based on a very literal reading of the Old Testament.

There's been a lot of talk in recent years about how religiously based opinions have the same right to be heard in the public square as opinions rooted in secular ideas. That's all good and fine; I certainly don't think that someone's position on any given issue is illegitimate because it's influenced by religion, and I think that a lot of the time, secular liberals have been dismissive of certain conservative views for no other reason. But if religiously based ideas should have equal access to the public square, they should not be off-limits to harsh criticism and even ridicule, any more than secular ideologies. If you can spout vicious nonsense and then have it excused on the grounds that it's your interpretation of the Bible, then maybe you don't belong in a public forum.

And how pathetic that, instead of firmly repudiating the odious Pat Robertson, Kasich should try to shoot the messenger and bizarrely suggest that it's unfair for the statements of public leaders to be analyzed too much.

(Cross-posted at The Y Files)

Comments

Ron Hardin|1.7.06 @ 6:45AM|#

Perhaps ``God's punishment'' isn't to be taken literally, either.

If he proposed action based on it, then it would be literal.

It's a fairly respectible view (Levinas, ``A religion for adults'' in _Difficult Freedom_) that religion is the poetization of ethics in general, which is how it comes to be said it's only figurative; and that's a modern view.

Dave W.|1.7.06 @ 7:24AM|#

Sure the ridicule is deserved, but why waste Reasonspace ridiculing him? Solidarity?

There are plenty of people who are more articulate and sane at communicating Israel's legitimacy and importance, even against misconceptions that are propagated by those who seek to destroy Israel. At the margin, dump the Robertson posts.

Here's a good rule of thumb: only address what Robertson says in situations where the Bush administration has to first.

|1.7.06 @ 8:01AM|#

Nah...I say mock him with wild abandon on THIS board,Dave W.

Rightly or wrongly, with little impact or large, P.R. is both an instigator and weathervane of some conservative thought.

Do you think Pat Robertson is the ONLY right wing religious conservative who feels this way?

There is a whole cadre of right wing waitin'-fer-the-rapture types in or influencing the Bush administration in key diplomatic posts on foreign policy.

Their agenda ISN'T on gaining peace or fairness in Isreal. It's on hastening the steps THEY feel need to happen based on THEIR reading of the bible that will make "God come back and take them up in the body so they won't have to endure the tribulation."

Being has how P.R.'s influence has helped bring about this silliness, I think the more venal, idiotic or insane his comments, the more they should be commented on...especially on boards like this one.

|1.7.06 @ 8:03AM|#

One big difference between Pat and the Iranian president (who badly needs an easier-tospell name) is that it's not nearly as much fun to get baked and watch the Iranian dude on TV. The former was a favorite activity of ours when we were teens and PR was a relatively unknown local guy with a much cruder show.

And Pat is not in a position of political power. I suppose that's a somewhat important distinction, though not as important as the getting baked one.

While we're at it, I wonder why Pat doesn't call for the death of Jews who consort with Christians; I married a Catholic and wanted to name our kid Phineas. I'm giggly at the vision of Pat wearing payas...

|1.7.06 @ 8:54AM|#

What's the issue here? Whether or not P.R. is a nut-cake? Yes. Whether or not he can and should be criticized for his public comments? Yes.

Kasich's defense is absurd. He tries to move the issue from one of P.R.'s inappropriate comments to one of the supposed anti-Christian zeal permeating the country. It doesn't matter that Robertson was quoting the Bible, as he wasn't doing it in a vacuum. He was applying a piece of scripture to a current event in order to make a political comment. Those who try to hide behind scripture may actually be worse than those who attempt to foist it upon everyone.

|1.7.06 @ 9:11AM|#

I am not a Christian, nor even a believer...but it would seem to me that if the Bible as the "word of God" is the cornerstone of one's religion, then it SHOULD be taken literaly. If parts of it are too odious, then toss it.
People who insist that it should be "interpretted" for modern times because they dislike the results that a "literal" interpretation would entail are to my mind simply being dishonest,...they are unwilling to admit that much of what their religion is founded on is just so much crap. Taken literaly the God of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is a monster. But how many Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, would ever admit that they worship such a being?
Those who insist on "interpretting" the Bible to fit modern sensibilities remind me very much of those who insist that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but that it must be "interpretted" because it is not a "death pact". In other words: They don't LIKE what it says. I say, tough!

|1.7.06 @ 9:27AM|#

(sigh) Make that, "literally".

Sandy|1.7.06 @ 9:35AM|#

I suppose it would be too much to ask Mr. Kasich to consider the possibility that if he finds the comparison of Pat with the president of Iran uncomfortable, maybe that says more about Pat's views than the people doing the comparison.

Pace Godwin, somebody who emulates key portions of Hitler's program but leaves out the Final Solution can still be criticized as being too much like a guy we already know is bad. Likewise we know the president of Iran is a nutjob, so Pat being too much like him may not make him as big of a nutjob, but it still means he's beginning to get a crusty wooden outer shell.

Maybe Kasich could do him a favor, if he likes him so much, and point out that being less like the president of Iran is better than being more like him, and these things won't come up.

|1.7.06 @ 10:02AM|#

After reading the O'Reilly transcript before my morning coffee kicked in, I offer this sincere question: Other than car-wreck style entertainment, why on earth does anybody watch shows like that?

|1.7.06 @ 10:06AM|#

If he proposed action based on it, then it would be literal.

For instance, calling for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

tomWright|1.7.06 @ 10:06AM|#

Pat Robertson is an embarasment to rationality.

(what? He isn't rational?)

Never mind

|1.7.06 @ 10:10AM|#

"Likewise we know the president of Iran is a nutjob, so Pat being too much like him may not make him as big of a nutjob, but it still means he's beginning to get a crusty wooden outer shell."

Sandy, that phrase is worth our monthly ISP charges. Thank you. You are brilliant. KJC

|1.7.06 @ 10:26AM|#

Well, I share your disapproval of the "Are you comparing..." line of argument. While such a red herring usually intimidates the comparer into submission, Levinson did a good job not backing down from the fact that their actions are indeed comparable.

Trouble is, whenever we have a discussion about abortion here, I get the selfsame response whenever I compare killing embryos and killing some class of already-born people. "Are you comparing embryos to homosexuals?!! "Are you comparing embryos to blacks?!" etc.

|1.7.06 @ 10:37AM|#

By the way, I'm sure Pat has changed his mind about this, but fifteen years ago, according to Pat, George W. Bush belongs to the spirit of the Antichrist:

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

(Bush is a Methodist.)

|1.7.06 @ 11:04AM|#

John Kasich, a part time host on the 24 hour Fox News network said:
have we gotten to the point now in America where, with the blogs and the 24-hour news cycle, you can't say anything? It's going to be analyzed, overanalyzed, taken out of context?

Again, this was said by a part time host on a 24 hour news network.

Did I mention that Kasich is a host on Fox?

Pat Robertson, on his own, is not particularly alarming. He's actually kind of funny.

But when people defend him, that's scary. Or at least sad.

Warren|1.7.06 @ 11:22AM|#

The religious right now the dominant voice in all three branches of government still plays the victim card.

I think America could use an anti-Christian backlash that fulfills the fundies persecution fantasies. A coalition of Democrats, card-caring members of the ACLU, and atheists, going around speaking out against Christians. Touting the message that we must keep our children safe from the poison of Christian faith.

|1.7.06 @ 11:35AM|#

Warren-

We don't need an anti-Christian backlash. We need an anti-fundie backlash. There's a difference.

Wintermute|1.7.06 @ 11:51AM|#

This is the line that shows the worst problem, one that keeps us embroiled even though the Cold War is over, the "commom ground," so to speak, between fundamentalist Christians and Zionists:

"nations that bless Israel are gonna be blessed, nations that curse Israel are gonna be cursed"

Yogi|1.7.06 @ 11:53AM|#

Love or hate the show West Wing's politics, you'll all appreciate this exchange. This was back when Aaron Sorkin was still writing the scripts.

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

Yogi|1.7.06 @ 11:54AM|#

I'd say that pretty much sums up the ridiculousness of taking at least the Old Testament literally, right?

David Eads|1.7.06 @ 11:56AM|#

...but it would seem to me that if the Bible as the "word of God" is the cornerstone of one's religion, then it SHOULD be taken literaly. If parts of it are too odious, then toss it.

This is a position I'm deeply sympathetic with, especially given the intellectual contortions of liberal Christians, but it is too simplistic for a couple reasons.

A minor question is: Do you toss the odious parts or the whole thing? If you toss the odious parts, what do you have left?

The questions that are more to heart of the issue, and Robertson's comments, are: what are the context--literary, historical, etc--of the passages he's reading, and how does that affect interpretation? The possibility of a purely literal reading is incredibly naive. The writer(s) of Genesis put two flatly contradictory accounts of creation side by side (God created the Earth in 7 days, God created the Earth in one day). If it is true, as historians think, that Genesis is a compilation of oral traditions into written language made by a group of editors, one has to wonder -- did the writer(s) themselves take the text literally if they were willing to put two contradictory myths in direct sequence? If the writer(s) didn't, what's the mean for how a contemporary person is supposed to read it?

If Robertson wanted to be "Biblical" in the mode that Kasich says he is being, then he would know that Joel (and all other prophets) were commenting on specific situations for their specific times. Only later -- the followers (cult?) of Jesus lead the way here -- would prophets be seen not as social reformists (not in the contemporary sense by any means) but as prognosticators. Taken on its own terms, Robertson and his defenders really can't invoke Joel as a justification for his nonsense. If he was taking the Bible "literally", Robertson should have let God talk to him, found out what God had to say about Sharon, and then told us in the prophetic mode. The only problem here is that I highly doubt God is talking to Pat Robertson (or anybody else), so Robertson, Kasich, et al. have to invoke a dubiously "literal" reading of the Bible to justify their shameful position.

(First post on Hit n' Run, y'all, after reading it for a long time! Also, disclaimer: I'm not a Christian but I do know a fair amount about issues of Biblical interpretation, etc. Do intellectual honest and feasible readings of the Bible therefore make it true? No, but folks like PR and his cronies never even make it that far.)

Garth|1.7.06 @ 12:00PM|#

For those of us for whom the belief in any deity is some form of delusion, Pat�s comments fall somewhere in the nether reaches of nonsense� that hordes of his fellow-traveler-ignoramuses exist is frightening nonetheless.

Yogi|1.7.06 @ 12:15PM|#

A minor question is: Do you toss the odious parts or the whole thing? If you toss the odious parts, what do you have left?

I grew up in a fundie household, and actually went to a private grade school from K-8th grade that taught creationism, the whole works. I got to college (a Christian liberal arts one, no less) and began being challenged by certain contradictions. I started defending the literal translation of the Bible but soon realized that I had to tie myself into an intellectual pretzel to do it. It was the question above that haunted me for those couple years. I knew I couldn't defend some parts of the Bible, but I couldn't justify just picking and choosing which parts I ignored. It wasn't until I began to understand how to read the Bible in the non-literal way that I finally got off the fundie bandwagon, but let me tell you, it was not easy at all. Don't bash these people because you think they're stupid. Many are far from it. They've been indoctrinated probably as long, if not longer, as I was, and its hard to admit to yourself that everything you believe in is being flipped upside down.

|1.7.06 @ 12:15PM|#

After all my moaning about the disrespect of religion in the public sphere in a previous thread, i'd comment here that every other religious leader should come out and unequivocally call Pat a raving self promoting hypocritcal fuckwit a pussy-hair shy of being our own personal Ayatollah who doesnt represent anything remotely close to an honest religious leader. He's a political opportunist who needs constant sensationalism to remain relevant. I cant believe in this exchange none of the guests bother to remind the host that PR called 9/11 punishment for homosexuality, Katrina punishment for abortion, etc. and regular other missives of gloating over other peoples misfortunes.

in other words, he is constantly capitalizing on human suffering for his own personal agenda, and reasonable people should have total contempt and disgust for that kind of posturing, which has nothing to do with 'christianity'. Why couldnt somone on this show just say, 'Kasich, are you claiming the bible says that bad things ONLY happen to bad people? have you even read the fricking thing?? Give me a break.'

JG

|1.7.06 @ 12:37PM|#

I mentioned this on the other Robertson thread, but Robertson's wife was seven months pregnant on their wedding day. So why doesn't Robertson assume that he and his wife will be subject to Old Testament punishments for fornication?

Because he's a hypocrite, of course. Hell, Jesus had a few rude things to say about people who make a point of praying in public to show off their piousness, but that hasn't stopped Robertson from making a career out of public prayer.

The man is just a nutty hypocrite, is all. He'd be the same no matter which religion he was raised under; had he been born in Soviet Russia he could have been one of those high-ranking Communists who insisted that all people must have the exact same standard of living, even as he lived in a palace and enjoyed a lifestyle a thousand times better than the rank-and-file Soviet citizen.

What's more, if you were to somehow pin Robertson down and force him to answer questions, like "Why weren't your premarital sexual escapades as hateful in the eyes of God as the sex lives of others?", he'd do some bizarre mental gymnastics to justify his behavior. And he'd contradict himself whil einsisting that he did not.

You may as well ask Mark David Chapman to give a sane explanation for why "Catcher in the Rye" and the song "Watching the Wheels" meant that he had to murder John Lennon. I'm sure it made sense to him, but it won't make sense to anybody sane.

|1.7.06 @ 12:45PM|#

...but it would seem to me that if the Bible as the "word of God" is the cornerstone of one's religion, then it SHOULD be taken literaly. If parts of it are too odious, then toss it.

This is a position I'm deeply sympathetic with, especially given the intellectual contortions of liberal Christians, but it is too simplistic for a couple reasons.

With all due respect to jw and David Eads, I find your somewhat ill-informed opinion amusing. It seems in addition to not actually being Christian, you know litte about Christianity. It may help for you to separate "biblical" from "Christian." Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's Christian. Christ himself plainly directs that some of the biblical Old Testament practices are plainly wrong - like stoning defenseless ladies to death.

Christians, for the past 2000 years, have eschewed a LOT of the OLD testament crankiness. Most of the issues liberal and conservative Christians argue about have a lot to do with how to follow Christ's example. Now I have my arguments with some liberal Christians. But I have a lot more problems with the Far Right version of things.

DISCLOSURE: I am a regular church attending Christian who is somewhat moderate in my politics. I fall to the right on many issues but occassionally accept a left-leaning idea if it jibes with my faith.

Many Conservative practitioners - Pat Robinson and company - are a revolting example of Christianity being used as a tool to manipulate ignorant folk. They certainly do not speak for me. And I object that my difference of opinion means I'm practicing "intellectual contortions of liberal Christians."

I submit to you that the cherry-picking nature of the far right in selecting the passages THEY think justify their points are no better. They tend to leave out the inconvenient stuff.

The only people Christ is on record as ever getting angry at were people who used the church for their financial gain and self-righteous hypocrites who used biblical law as a basis to attack others.

Christ said "love you neighbor as yourself." Simple and straight forward. He then went on to live according to that maxim while suggesting that it was a good idea the rest of us do the same.

Christ wasn't even the first Jew to come up with this. The Talmud (Shabbat 31a) reports that one Rabbi Hillel (who died about 10 AD) was challenged to recite the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg. He replied "What is hateful to you to you, do not to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, all else is explaination. Go and learn this."

|1.7.06 @ 12:52PM|#

I take issue with:

"I'm not saying that there's no difference between Pat Robertson and fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. Pat isn't urging people to strap on explosives and go blow up the infidels"

PR specifically said that Rabin's death was God's judgement for "dividing Israel." Logically, then, the assassin was doing the Lord's work. He is no different from the Islamic fanatics who blow up buses in Jerusalem. The only real difference between him and the president of Iran is not him, but us. He has no political power because we won't give him any. Doesn't keep him from trying, though.

FOX News the home of Bible-thumping sociopaths and proto-terrorists? Nooooo...say it isn't so....

|1.7.06 @ 12:53PM|#

My apologies to David Eads. I misread some of your post and misunderstood part of your point.

Please accept my apology.

|1.7.06 @ 1:07PM|#

Pat isn't urging people to strap on explosives and go blow up the infidels, nor is he calling for unchaste women to be stoned to death.

At least... not yet.

|1.7.06 @ 1:09PM|#

...and not publicly.

|1.7.06 @ 1:18PM|#

"I mean -- are you saying that what is written in the Bible cannot be applied today?"

No, Former-Congressman Christian Fuck-tard (R OH), We're saying that the Bible has no worth what so ever.

|1.7.06 @ 1:24PM|#

The best thing about PR is his effectiveness as a warning beacon for the evils of religious bigotry and the dangers of theocratic fascism. With Pat on the job, it'll be hard for these loons to sneak up on anyone! (with or without the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch)

|1.7.06 @ 1:31PM|#

But if religiously based ideas should have equal access to the public square, they should not be off-limits to harsh criticism and even ridicule, any more than secular ideologies.

I agree 100%.

...and in the spirit of criticism, I think Robertson's explanation for his beliefs regarding the Book of Joel are misleading. ...I think Robertson't bigger context is all about Daniel and Revelation. I think he thinks that the sooner the State of Israel destroys its foes, the sooner they'll rebuild the temple on the temple mount and the sooner Jesus will come. ...I wish Robertson's thoughts were merely a reflection of a fundamentalist interpretation of Joel, but I fear it's much, much worse than that... I suspect Robertson's views on foreign policy are a function of his interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy in the Book of Revelation.

...the President's statement gives me some hope that the President's views, at least, may not be infected with the same virus. Thank you for that Mr. President.

|1.7.06 @ 1:36PM|#

Jennifer,
What's frustrating about fundamentalists is that they steal a page from the evangelical book whenever they've done something wrong. They're legalistic and fire and brimstone until they're caught, and after that no mental gymnastics are required to excuse the past indiscretions of fundamentalists. The phrase, "Yes, I sinned, but I'm forgiven" is a get out of jail free card for them.

|1.7.06 @ 1:44PM|#

the point is they steal the great idea of universal grace and only apply it to themselves while damning everyone else to hell

|1.7.06 @ 1:48PM|#

I mentioned this on the other Robertson thread, but Robertson's wife was seven months pregnant on their wedding day. So why doesn't Robertson assume that he and his wife will be subject to Old Testament punishments for fornication?

The answer, I believe, is Dispensationalism.

...of course, that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite.

I'd like to hear him address things he seems even more hypocritical on. ...How do you account for Jesus' statements regarding God's kingdom being heavenly rather than earthly? How 'bout biblical texts suggesting that the rain falls on the good and the evil alike? ...on and on...

If the God of Pat Robertson really was in charge, I'd rather worship the Devil. I think Robertson's a disgrace to fundamentalism, which is why I use the term Evangelical to describe him and ilk. What kind of God, indeed, what kind of person would want to spend eternity with people like Robertson?

|1.7.06 @ 2:00PM|#

I was in prep school in central Virginia when I was old enough to register to vote. As I've said before, I was a huge supporter of Ronald Reagan when I was too young to vote. ...but being in that part of Virginia and being Republican made it seem like I was a supporter of Robertson and, even more importantly, Jerry Falwell. ...Even with my fundamentalist--rather than Evangelical--background, I couldn't stomach being associated with them and that. ...not even by accident.

That was when I first started seriously thinking of myself as a libertarian and what that meant. So I guess I can thank Robertson, Falwell and others for that.

...Jerry and Pat, thank you both very much--now go screw yourselves.

|1.7.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Christian Broadcasting Network Chairman Pat Robertson:

"Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake-the entire world is being convulsed by a religious struggle. The fight is not about money or territory; it is not about poverty versus wealth; it is not about ancient customs versus modernity. No-the struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is Supreme."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world."
"Any Islamic leader who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

Their methods might differ, but they share the same madness.

|1.7.06 @ 2:44PM|#

The guy has a following smaller than the Hornets', he can't even be elected dogcatcher. He's good for news outlets because he's an impotent bogeyman.

Why are any of you investing even the slightest,/i> bit of seriousness in this guy? Follow my advice and ONLY listen to anything he has to say when you're totally baked and can appreciate the John Waters humor aspect.

|1.7.06 @ 2:46PM|#

I like Pat Robertson's God. Assuming that Sharon does not recover, that would mean that God's idea of divine punishment is to make you die of natural causes, at a ripe old age, respected by your friends and feared by your enemies. Heck, I wouldn't mind being punished like that.

|1.7.06 @ 2:54PM|#

Madpad -- Brilliant. And extra points for coming back after realizing your mistake on David Eads' post.

Even if you wanted to take the Bible "literally," what exactly does that mean? You can read the Bible as a vital history, one that's particularly meaningful to you if you believe in God and Christ as supernatural beings, yet that doesn't force you to follow Old Testament law any more than a reading of a copy of the Constitution circa 1922 would compel you to obey Prohibition. To say the Bible contains a diversity of voices is not to say it isn't "true," in most senses in which you could call something "true."

I was taught at summer camp that "every word in the Bible is true." That axiom was refuted by notable animated theologian Peter Griffin, who extracted the word "the" when it suited his cause.

(At least, I think it was Peter Griffin -- hard to do a Web search in which the key word is "the.")

|1.7.06 @ 3:02PM|#

Funny thing about modern folk who insist on taking the Bible literally--even in Biblical times people didn't take it literally. I was just reading a book last week with a title like "Famous Lies of History"; here's one example it mentioned:

Remember the story of Jonah and the whale, where the Bible says Jonah was "swallowed by a great fish"? Apparently that was an idiom which, in modern terms, meant the same thing as being "in a pickle" or "stuck between a rock and a hard place." (Remember, Jonah was upset because God told him to go to the sinful city of Nineveh and preach to them. Not a happy situation for anyone.) It's not meant to descibe anything literal about the location of the person's body, and when the story was first written nobody took it that way.

But now fundamentalists say that yes, he really was swallowed by an actual fish, and spit out a few days later reeking of fish guts. Yes, and a guy who's "in a pickle" really does have his body surrounded by a gigantic cucumber-and-vinegar combination.

|1.7.06 @ 3:49PM|#

The book was Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths about World History.

|1.7.06 @ 3:56PM|#

...if religiously based ideas should have equal access to the public square, they should not be off-limits to harsh criticism and even ridicule, any more than secular ideologies.

There, as they say, is the rub. Many of the Bible-thumpers want it both ways: they insist on staking a place as an equal contender in the Marketplace Of Ideas, then demand a sort of special dispensation when the proverbial shit thickens. Oh, there I go, Christian-bashing again...

|1.7.06 @ 4:43PM|#

I just have to say that it bugs me when people criticizing Christians (and I'm not even anything but a very nominal Christian myself) say stuff like, "Well, in the Old Testament it says I get to sell my children into slavery! Can I do that, huh, huh?" There's something called the New Covenant, which is what Jesus brought. Look it up. Christians are not bound by everything in the Old Testament. (And yes, this makes it just as stupid when Christians try to use parts of the Old Testament to prove that homosexuality is a sin.)

|1.7.06 @ 5:34PM|#

Pat isn't urging people to strap on explosives and go blow up the infidels, nor is he calling for unchaste women to be stoned to death.

At least... not yet.

--

Excuse me? He said flat-out in October, 2003 that the state department should be nuked.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/

|1.7.06 @ 5:35PM|#

And how did polar bears and llamas get aboard Noah's Ark ?

David Bowie lyric from the song "Law (Earthlings on Fire) : "I don't want knowledge, I want certainty"

|1.7.06 @ 5:43PM|#

Christians are not bound by everything in the Old Testament.

So you say. But the according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said:"For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."

|1.7.06 @ 5:43PM|#

JD:
I just have to say that it bugs me when people criticizing Christians (and I'm not even anything but a very nominal Christian myself) say stuff like, "Well, in the Old Testament it says I get to sell my children into slavery! Can I do that, huh, huh?" There's something called the New Covenant, which is what Jesus brought. Look it up. Christians are not bound by everything in the Old Testament. (And yes, this makes it just as stupid when Christians try to use parts of the Old Testament to prove that homosexuality is a sin.)

--
Actually, Matthew 5:17-19 says exactly that. Jesus himself is saying that ALL of the old rules apply, including the nasty ones of Leviticus. Makes sense, actually. He wouldn't have wanted to alienate the conservative Jews of the time.

|1.7.06 @ 6:08PM|#

"I certainly don't think that someone's position on any given issue is illegitimate because it's influenced by religion. ..."

I do.

|1.7.06 @ 6:26PM|#

"I certainly don't think that someone's position on any given issue is illegitimate because it's influenced by religion,...",


I agree, but the episotology upon which he has based his position is invalid. He is just guessing, correct or not.

|1.7.06 @ 7:59PM|#

No God and Cantankerous-But Christians hold, in line with the Pauline views of Christianity, that Christ was the fulfillment of the old prophecies. As a consequence, they don't believe that the legal aspects of the old covenant apply to them* rather that they are bound by Christ's moral codes. It makes thematic sense because Christ hadn't yet died on the cross, so the old covenant hadn't been fulfilled.

*Unless they need to justify ostracising gay people.

|1.7.06 @ 8:29PM|#

Religion informs Theology. Those of you who think Theology an illegitimate discipline, I have to wonder, how do you feel about some of the other softer disciplines? Do you feel that way about Aesthetics?

|1.7.06 @ 8:34PM|#

But Christians hold, in line with the Pauline views of Christianity, that Christ was the fulfillment of the old prophecies. As a consequence, they don't believe that the legal aspects of the old covenant apply to them* rather that they are bound by Christ's moral codes.

I think there is very little that is true of all self-described Christians.

|1.7.06 @ 9:06PM|#

Those of you who think Theology an illegitimate discipline,,,

People who study "Theology" as a discipline are often (though certainly not always) people intending to pursue the ministry. So studying Theology has a practical application. One would expect a minister to be able to offer reasoned discourses on God.

Still others who study theology are people merely interested in the topic.

As for Aesthetics, keep in mind this is the discipline that legitomizes Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" - a porcelain urinal - as an influential work of art.

I'd have to say I don't see much use for it.

|1.7.06 @ 10:00PM|#

Ken-
I think there is very little that is true of all self-described Christians.

Actually, unless a sect or individual rejects the letters of Paul, (letters which provide the baseline for most non-gnostic sects of Christianity) then what I wrote is correct. Trust me, the idea of Christ being the fulfilment of the old covenant is pretty much Mainstream Christian Theology 101.

|1.7.06 @ 10:14PM|#

Are you saying that "Fountain" wasn't influential? It damn well was.

I always took "Fountain" as an attack on the ossified aesthetic sensibilities of his day -- as 'anti-aesthetic' (which is a historical reading, not an aesthetic one).

From Wikipedia:

the meaning of aesthetic as an adjective may be illuminated by comparing it to anaesthetic, which is by construction an antonym. If something is anaesthetic, it tends to dull the senses or cause sleepiness. In contrast aesthetic may be thought of as anything that tends to stimulate or enliven the senses.

|1.7.06 @ 11:38PM|#

Beliefs and conclusions based on irrational religious and mystical premises are not correct. Reason is the only way to determine truth. I naturally don't trust any conclusion or belief that is arrived at by mystical beliefs. Cathy says "I certainly don't think that someone's position on any given issue is illegitimate because it's influenced by religion." I say no. I say Cathy is trying to be a people pleaser.

|1.7.06 @ 11:47PM|#

T Bone...I think in some weird, twisted and thoroughly delightful way, you've made my point for me. Rock on you ossified anaesthetic mofo you! Rock On!

|1.8.06 @ 12:02AM|#

Cathy says "I certainly don't think that someone's position on any given issue is illegitimate because it's influenced by religion." I say no. I say Cathy is trying to be a people pleaser.

Little harsh, don't ya' think?

Cathy has been accused of that before but there is occassionally some fine wisdon in her work. She is often one of the more balanced writers for none other than the fact that she makes balance a focus of much of her work.

I think you'll find many (if not most) folks positions are influenced by beliefs - religious, political, scientific, etc.

The fact that some folks positions are based on religion no more invalidates them than someone backing up their position based on a politial ideology (try to explain how that's NOT like a religion) or a subjective interpretation of scientific data.

|1.8.06 @ 12:13AM|#

One problem is that Christians tend not to read the Bible. So, when someone pulls something bizarre and topical out of the book, your typical Christian is taken completely at unawares, since they have never read it.

|1.8.06 @ 12:19AM|#

"The fact that some folks positions are based on religion no more invalidates them than someone backing up their position based on a politial ideology or a subjective interpretation of scientific data."

The earth revolves around the sun. We are descendants of simpler forms of life. Israel, as a democracy, has a right to exist.
"Some folks' positions based on religion" have challenged all of those. "Some folks' positions based on religion" are wrong. Religion and mysticism lead to faulty conclusions. Data cannot be "subjectively interpreted." It can only be wrongly interpreted, or judged to be incomplete as to render a judgement impossible.

|1.8.06 @ 12:20AM|#

Johnl:
That is an excellent point.

|1.8.06 @ 12:30AM|#

I'm familiar with the suggestion that it's irrational to believe in things for which there is no objective evidence. ...I remain skeptical.

It still seems to me that when no objective evidence is possible, one should use and, indeed, argue about the evidence at hand. ...in an entirely rational way.

...Theology does this; there are other disciplines that do it too, Aesthetics being one example. Tell me, what do you think of String Theory?

The Intelligent Design debate gets hung up on this kind of misconception, I think. I don't oppose teaching Intelligent Design in public schools because the theory's irrational. To the contrary, I oppose teaching it in public schools because it's Theology.

...It very well may be that a creator God designed the universe, but I don't think you can get there by way of Science. ...but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Assuming that something isn't true because it can't be scientifically proven seems like bias to me, not reason.

Good Science is conscious of what it has and hasn't proven. ...Good Theology is too.

|1.8.06 @ 12:44AM|#

Jamie Kelly,
Your heliocentric ideas are an abomination. Reason has shown that we live in a geocentric universe.

|1.8.06 @ 12:45AM|#

Jamie Kelly,
Descendents of simpler life forms? Didn't you take biology?

|1.8.06 @ 12:47AM|#

Jamie Kelly,
These ideas about "quantum" physics are preposterous - there's no way they're true.

|1.8.06 @ 2:11AM|#

"Assuming that something isn't true because it can't be scientifically proven seems like bias to me, not reason."

And assuming that something IS true without evidence or proof is simply superstition.

|1.8.06 @ 2:34AM|#

"Beliefs and conclusions based on irrational religious and mystical premises are not correct. Reason is the only way to determine truth."

That is not exactly so. Beliefs and conclusions based on divine revelation, religious faith, mysticism, etc. may very well be true or correct. On the other hand it is reason, by means of observation and logic, that must be used to validate that truth or correctness.
And yes, that is a form of bias. But it is kind of like being biased toward bread instead of rocks when one is hungry.

|1.8.06 @ 2:54AM|#

As for Mr. Einstein, Mr. Lamark, and the Greek Astronomical Establishment,...I suppose the point of your comments is that Reason is sometimes wrong. Well yes, it is. But I don't think anyone would claim that Reason is infallible.
Is Faith and Divine Revelation infallible? Some have at times claimed that they are. I don't see how one would know except by means of Reason.

I always enjoy watching people try to use Reason and Logic to invalidate same. It reminds me of those who cry that there are no absolutes and ignore the fact that they are stating one. Or the folk who claim there is no such thing as certainty,...kinda makes me want to ask if they are certain of that.

David Eads|1.8.06 @ 3:28AM|#

Yogi: I grew up the same way, and had a similar schooling. I don't think we're on particularly different pages on this one.

Madpad: Thanks for re-reading. Most certainly "Christian" does not equal "Biblical". That's sort of the point, isn't it? P.R. and others want it both ways -- sort similar to the "Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same God" argument. But it doesn't work that way. In any case, you might enjoy that one of my bicycles has Rabbi Hillel's great quote on it: "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?�

|1.8.06 @ 3:37AM|#

"I certainly don't think that someone's position on any given issue is illegitimate because it's influenced by religion." I say no. I say Cathy is trying to be a people pleaser.

While I tend to agree with your general point of reason being a better tool than religion, are you saying that you think the positions of people like Martin Luthor King, Ghandi, Oscar Romero, Desmond Tutu (not to mention the many, many more, people of faith who, through their courage and sacrifice, accomplish more than most of us unbelievers) were illegitimate? Isn't it reasonable to believe that the source of their bravery and vision is not as important as the good things were actually able to do?

|1.8.06 @ 3:41AM|#

(not to mention the many, many more, people of faith who, through their courage and sacrifice...)

Though they'd be hard pressed to forgive my puntuation and grammar.

raymond|1.8.06 @ 3:45AM|#

Reason is the only way to determine truth.

That statement is wrong twice.

First, because it seems to say that conclusions we arrive at using reason are likely "true". (Whatever "true" means.)

Because we depend on our senses - which can be tricked or are limited - for the raw material we use in reasoning, we cannot be certain that our conclusions have much to do with reality. We can only accept what seems to us to work at the moment.

Because some of our premisses come from others, reasoning requires we put a lot of trust in others, their senses and motives and reasoning. But others may be wrong. Their premisses false.

Take "intelligent design". Using one's senses and the rule of "what works" for (most of) us, intelligent design is a perfectly reasonable explanation for my existence. Add to that the authority of generations of acknowledged "great thinkers" and the reasoned notion of a creator looks... unfalsifiable.

Is intelligent design "true"? I have no idea. Certainly billions and billions of reasoning beings have arrived at the conclusion that it is.

Second, because it says outright that reason is "the only way to determine truth".

I think there are other ways. Intuition. Instinct. Response to stimuli. Dreams. Meditation. Art.

It seems to me that reason alone (which itself depends on faith) does not necessarily lead to truth. We westerners depend too much, perhaps, on the yang of the scientific method. Perhaps we need a dose of yin to help us round off our "truths".

The earth revolves around the sun. We are descendants of simpler forms of life. Israel, as a democracy, has a right to exist.

You offer these as "truths" arrived at through reason. But you yourself have accepted them all on faith.

In fact, the centre of the universe is Switzerland. (Lausanne, to be exact.) The maths is really complicated, but the movement is a gloriously complex and beautiful swirl of spirals. Worthy of a master clock-maker.

I do not "know" that I have descended from a simpler form of life. My reasoning and ability to choose - which is the essence of "me" - seems to be mine alone. My "I" seems to be the ever-changing result of my environment and choices. Certainly I believe/accept that the matter of which I'm composed is star-stuff. But my "I" is my creation.

And finally, "right to exist." I believe that only living human beings have any rights. If we start applying the notion of "rights" to countries, then we must apply it to animals, plants, committees, automobiles... And then, pretty quickly, the notion becomes meaningless.

Israel, whether a democracy or a dictatorship, has no "rights". She moves in and out of existence like the moon, and rights do not wax or wane.

The people who live within the borders of what is today Israel have rights. The people who live in the occupied territories have rights. Those who were forced out at her creation have rights.

Anyway. "What is truth?"

|1.8.06 @ 5:05AM|#

Anyway. "What is truth?"

Apparently it is whatever you want it to be.


"I do not "know" that I have descended from a simpler form of life."

No, Raymond...You ARE the simpler form of life. Be careful someone doesn't squash you.

|1.8.06 @ 8:08AM|#

"Because we depend on our senses - which can be tricked or are limited - for the raw material we use in reasoning, we cannot be certain that our conclusions have much to do with reality. We can only accept what seems to us to work at the moment."

By what means does one reach that conclusion? By reasoning and drawing conclusions based on the "raw material" of our senses? Likewise, how do we arrive at the conclusion that something "seems to work at the moment" except by inferences drawn from the "raw material" of our senses? Measurements can only be as good as the STANDARD of measurement that is used. The standard of measurement is the one that we choose and we choose it according to our purposes.

"I think there are other ways. Intuition. Instinct. Response to stimuli. Dreams. Meditation. Art."

These may supply some data or propositions, but what validates them? In the end it is Reason.

"It seems to me that reason alone (which itself depends on faith) does not necessarily lead to truth."

Reason does not depend on faith. It depends on assumptions or postulates, ie. basic premises or statements that are self-evidently true. By self-evident I mean that one must first assume them to be true even to doubt them.

"My reasoning and ability to choose - which is the essence of "me" - seems to be mine alone. My "I" seems to be the ever-changing result of my environment and choices."

(with apologies to Ayn Rand) Reasoning and ability to choose, as well as change, pre-supposes or necessitates that which reasons or chooses or changes. That "that" is your volitional consciousness. Likewise, consciousness pre-supposes that which is conscious. It also presupposes something to be conscious of other than itself. (To have identified itself as consciousness it must first have been conscious of something "outside" of itself.)
That which is conscious is your "I" or ego. That which it is conscious of is "existence" or reality. What is the identity of reality? That is for one to determine.

Ed|1.8.06 @ 8:29AM|#

PR says things that would get your average Joe commited to an insane asylum. But because he's a "respected" lunatic he's exempt. And because millions of fellow American lunatics tune in to his medicine show he's given a free pass. But he's a private citizen so he can say what he wants. He's held to a lower standard than a politician or CEO, both of whom would have been publicly lynched by now if they had uttered similar diatribes.

|1.8.06 @ 9:56AM|#

Jesus was really my nephew.

|1.8.06 @ 10:24AM|#

"Some folks' positions based on religion" have challenged all of those. "Some folks' positions based on religion" are wrong.

Good point, Jamie. My point, however, is somewhat more nuanced. And perhaps the word "invalidate" is worth exploring.

You are right that "Religion and mysticism lead to faulty conclusions. Data cannot be "subjectively interpreted." It can only be wrongly interpreted, or judged to be incomplete as to render a judgement impossible.

But the fact is data is frequently interpreted subjectively at great consequence. The current debate on global warming is an excellent example. Many renowned scientists swear it's a threat. Many libertarians, republicans and some other scientists swear it's not. Who's right is up for debate (I'm not looking to debate Global Warming - merely using its example)

But the one thing keeping the subject from being "invalid" is belief by a plurality that global warming is genuine. In other words, in the marketplace of ideas, it's got some legs.

I'm not debating the "nature of truth" with you. On that level, in it's purest, truth is truth and that's that. Data is data and it's interpereted either rightly or wrongly.

But there's still a lot of mystery to the universe and we lack a lot of info. Beliefs (religious, political, scientific) tend to give many of us a foothold on which to propel ourselves through life.

In terms of 'what's valid', I'm afraid the marketplace is a bigger force than either of us and we must hope the marketplace selects wisely.

Fortunately, few (I think) give Pat Robinson much validity.

Timothy|1.8.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Good point, Jamie. My point, however, is somewhat more nuanced. And perhaps the word "invalidate" is worth exploring.

Will this come before or after we determine what "is" means?

You are right that "Religion and mysticism lead to faulty conclusions. Data cannot be "subjectively interpreted." It can only be wrongly interpreted, or judged to be incomplete as to render a judgement impossible.

That leaves out that most science is approached from a Bayesian or likelihood standpoint. Where A is the hypothesis and B is the data we have, science is mostly P(A|B). Then using Baye's Theorem the dependent probabilities are adjusted as new data is gathered. As long as you don't start with dogmatic priors (IE 1 or 0) you'll eventually end up with the same conclusion given a large enough number of trials.

|1.8.06 @ 1:05PM|#

Timothy,

Are you actually suggeting that my attempt to explain the word "invalidate" in context is on par with a randy fellow trying to wriggle his way out of being caught in a lie?

I take umbrage, sir. A pox upon ye.

And isn't your further application of Bayes Theorem, doesn't your conclusion basically support what I said?

|1.8.06 @ 1:14PM|#

that was a hoot and a half.

i mean, don't you think people are being unfair to the guy? he only suggested ariel sharon's stroke was the result of divine retribution.

|1.8.06 @ 1:36PM|#

Data cannot be "subjectively interpreted."

Interpret: make sense of; assign a meaning to

Subjective:
adj 1: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" [ant: objective] 2: (philosophy) of a mental act; occurring entirely within the mind [syn: immanent] [ant: transeunt]

If data is not assigned meaning within the mind it is not interpreted. Subjective interpretation is a pleonastic redundancy of sorts. There is no other kind of interpretation. So to claim that data cannot be interpreted subjectively misunderstands both terms and their relationship in creating a semantic entity.

Just being picky;)

|1.8.06 @ 1:53PM|#

science,

you're onto something which goes to my primary point. But Jamie's point is more to the "pure" nature of data.

It's like that old maxim, "Computers don't make mistakes. People do." This is essentially true but has little real world application.

The "truth" derived from data is only as good as the person interpreting the data (subjective).

There are only correct or incorrect ways of interpreting the data but whether the person interpreted correctly may not be apparent for some time to come.

In the medievel times, as a result of observation, maggots were thought to come from rotting meat. This was obviously an incorrect interpretation of the data but the only one available at the time.

And based on my observation, I interpret that Pat Robinson's still a loon.

|1.8.06 @ 3:23PM|#

Sure, Christ said "Love your neighbor..." he also said

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Christ's word was so important to God that he forgot to mention it to the vast majority of humanity. For example, Native Americans were denied the incredibly important information until Europeans brought it with them. The Word spread at the pace one would expect it to spread if there were no God or if there were a God who didn't think his word particularly vital to humanity.

"Love your neighbor" is all well and good, and if you want to pretend that The Bible can be distilled to less than one page, feel free to do so. With that expurgated Bible, Pat Robertson is a nutjob. But even the New Testament contains a lot of problematic parts, including several passages that strongly suggest that Jesus was in favor of the old laws. God and Jesus, were they to exist and be omnipotent, could have done a much better job of making it clear that genocide, for example, is no longer a good idea.

Pat Robertson's words are not one hundredth the problem as the words of the Bible, New Covenant notwithstanding.

Science has killed God's activity on earth. Pat Robertson would have you believe otherwise. Israel used to matter to God. If he were to interfere anywhere, wouldn't it be with Israel's Prime Minister? Well, besides having me make this post to test your faith.

|1.8.06 @ 3:30PM|#

Mr. Eads,

Hillel was a great man. For those of you who don't know, he even has a sandwich named after him!

For those of you unfamiliar with the Pirkei Avot, Rabbi Chanina offers the following, Hobbesian sentiment ...

"Pray for the integrity of the government; for were it not for the fear of its authority, a man would swallow his neighbor alive." (3:2)

|1.8.06 @ 3:31PM|#

Madpad,

"...there are only correct or incorrect ways of interpreting the data..."

This would be true if we had some gold-standard of correctness. In most matters, and particularly those involving politics, religion, and human society, the standard against which things are measured isn't (I would say) ever going to be "correct" or "incorrect." There is certainly no elusive correct interpretation of any political issue, religious issue, or societal standard of any import. Just a discourse with a variety of gravitational centers that fluctuate in their influence upon sections of the populace. I tend to believe that the overall trends are towards improvement, but that just means they are approaching my subjective criteria (despite historically short-term setbacks perpetrated by freaks like Bush or Reagan or Putin or Bin Ladin).

Fur sure PR is a prick and a lunatic, but that's got nothing to do with putative objective data that would be relative to my interpretation (or anyone else's) whether we are talking about the bible or innate rights, it is the discourse that matters (from my point of view).

|1.8.06 @ 3:48PM|#

anon2,

Whether or not your observations about God, Jesus and the Bible are true, accurate or real has little to do with the problem or the point.

The problem is that people (all of us) believe things. Some people (Pat Robinson) believe things (true or not) which others (like myself...and others) find nutty.

The point is that Pat Robinson and I base our beliefs (allegedly) on our faith in Christianity. Pat believes God is actively 'smoting' (I know it's 'smiting' but 'smoting' is just funnier to me) folks who step out of line. I believe he's a kook.

Some folks like me think that while God may work in our lives, the concept of him 'smiting' Sharon is not half as scary as the thought that Pat Robinson may have God's ear on this one. The idea that P.R. is one of God's heralds or prophets or chosen doobies is creepy as all get out.

Anyway, my reading of the bible and my own spiritual development suggest to me that Pat's a nutball

Based on your analysis, it's probably safe to say that both Brother Pat and myself are guilty of picking and choosing the parts of the bible we find most satisfying.

But I wouldn't say science has killed God's activity. Though Robinson and the Dover, P.A. School Board sure think it has.

|1.8.06 @ 3:55PM|#

For example, Native Americans were denied the incredibly important information until Europeans brought it with them.

You've never talked to any Mormons, I take it.

|1.8.06 @ 4:14PM|#

Damn, Isaac...good one. I'd forgotten about that.

Andrew Ian Dodge|1.8.06 @ 6:49PM|#

I believe that Robertson is not only an arse but wrong. Gaza was not part of Biblical Israel at all I believe.

|1.8.06 @ 7:13PM|#

David Eads, if you're still there...
A minor question is: Do you toss the odious parts or the whole thing? If you toss the odious parts, what do you have left?

Tom Jefferson had some thoughts that direction and did a pretty cool cut and paste number on the Bible. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

And if you're really curious the text can be found here: http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

I like to use this example when some nutjob begins to tell me all about our countries 'christian' forefathers.

|1.8.06 @ 7:23PM|#

"Science has killed God's activity on earth."

"Science" can't do anything. It can't even blow my nose. Human beings can use scientific investigation to discover stuff, and they can use the discoveries to do various things, whether fighting disease, killing lots of people, or making a big-screen TV. Science is an instrument. And Who gave human beings the capacity to use that instrument?

If someone wants to give "science" the credit for some

|1.8.06 @ 7:25PM|#

(Last line was supposed to have been deleted)

Timothy|1.8.06 @ 7:59PM|#

Madpad: Eh, I did enough Parli debate in my senior year of high school that definitional arguments get to me. But please not the pox, sir, I beg you not the pox!

As for my post basically supporting what you said: yes, exactly.

|1.8.06 @ 8:08PM|#

My point is, relatively few people these days believe that when a storm kills a bunch of people, or a tsunami takes out 1/4 million, that it was because of one of the Gods. Zeus didn't do it. Thor didn't do it. The God of Abraham didn't do it. Relatively well understood meteorological or seismic events did. If we didn't have science to explain those mechanisms, more of us would believe in an active God.

If we didn't know about all the people whom Jesus never bothered to introduce himself to, the whole idea that Jesus's message was the important word of God would be more credible. Sure, the Mormons and some others believe that he did reveal himself in other places around the world, but there's very good evidence that suggests he didn't.

God no longer takes out huge numbers of people at a time for whatever petty reason (and when you think of it, any reason to an omnipotent god is petty) he thinks of. He also doesn't take out individual people. He didn't kill Harvey Milk, MLK, John Kennedy, or anyone else in recent times. Mainstream Christians agree on this.

He doesn't interfere with Thoreau's experiments or the experiments of people creating new computers or ... any experiments.

Many Christians want to distance themselves from Pat Robertson precisely because they think that anyone who suggests God does those things he used to, is a nutjob and they'd prefer not to have their religion so tainted. But that's due to science. We no longer ascribe lots of God-like activity to God. That's what mainstream Christianity is. God is love. Ignore the bad parts of the Bible. All the good and bad stuff now happens in the afterlife.

Who gave me the ability to reason thus? No person or God. It's a byproduct of evolution.

My belief is that the tribalism associated with belief in the God of Abraham is bad for modern humanity. People taking umbrage with PR and not re-examining the Bible are only helping further that tribalism. I wouldn't really care if there weren't real-world side-effects to religious beliefs, but there are. There's good and bad, but increasingly the bad outweighs the good. PR is a side-show compared to e.g. the tragedy associated with the fall-out from the Catholic church's opposition to condoms or what happens to economies that don't allow the payment of interest.

|1.8.06 @ 8:56PM|#

anon2,

"My belief is that the tribalism associated with belief in the God of Abraham is bad for modern humanity. . . . There's good and bad, but increasingly the bad outweighs the good. PR is a side-show compared to e.g. the tragedy associated with the fall-out from the Catholic church's opposition to condoms"

The traditional Christian position is to support chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within it. Deviation from that norm concededly contributes to many ills, including AIDS. There is a legitimate debate between the RCs and the "they-gonna-do-it-anyway" crowd, and this debate concerns whether the lives saved by the use of condoms by "people who would have done it anyway" is outweighed by the dangers (from AIDS and otherwise) associated with promoting a "you-gonna-do-it-anyway" attitude toward extramarital sex, thus potentially persuading some people to do it who otherwise wouldn't.

The only legitimate participants in this public-health debate is between parties who accept the marital norm as the ideal, while disagreeing over whether indirect assistance to subversion of this norm is justifiable.

"or what happens to economies that don't allow the payment of interest."

How can "belief in the God of Abraham" be blamed for economic ignorance, when the greatest showcases for economic ignorance is in economies run by Marxists, who happen to be atheists? I'd rather live in a country with a commercial economy in which interest is illegal, but you can get a good deal on a rug, than in a country like North Korea or Cuba run on principles of "scientific atheistm."

|1.8.06 @ 8:58PM|#

Grammatical errors acknowledged and pre-emptively apologized for.

|1.8.06 @ 9:18PM|#

A little bit OT:

Los Angeles -- In the wee hours of the morning of Jan. 17, another man will be put to death by lethal injection in the state of California. This comes exactly 36 days after the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams. But where are the protesters?

With just a few days to go before the scheduled execution of a 76-year-old blind and deaf man who uses a wheelchair, there has been no public outcry of support for clemency for Clarence Ray Allen, who is white. There have been no planned protests and celebrity read-ins in support of saving an old man's life. Community activists and civil rights leaders aren't organizing statewide tours to bring attention to Allen's execution. There hasn't even been one "Kill Clarence Ray Allen Hour" from KFI-AM's "John and Ken Show."

|1.8.06 @ 10:00PM|#

Apostate Jew,
I love the Hillel sandwich. The kick of the horseradish mixed with the sweet choreset and a sprig of parsley on a piece of unleavened flat bread is surprisingly good.

And then to wash it down with some kosher blackberry wine, delicious! I can hardly wait for Passover. And since I am Messianic, I get to mix my history lesson with the symbolic body and blood of the Savior, Yeshua.

As for the flap Robertson started, I would say this: Only a fool or a divinely inspired prophet would dare to say what is or is not God's judgement. As Robertson's pronouncements have proven wrong in the past, if he is claiming to be a prophet, he is a false prophet and should subject himself to a death by stoning. If he is simply a fool, then he subjects himself to laughter and ridicule.

|1.8.06 @ 10:03PM|#

I got the hundreth post. Call me a Centurion.

|1.8.06 @ 10:22PM|#

The word "Centurion" smacks of Rome, and the Romans killed Jesus, thus you are the anti-christ. Pat says wherever you live will be hit by a hurricane. Or not, whichever.

|1.8.06 @ 11:43PM|#

The AntiChrist? Wouldn't that be post #666 ? (or #999 depending on one's perspective)

|1.8.06 @ 11:53PM|#

I love the story about John Wayne playing the centurion in The Greatest Story Ever Told: After having delivered his line, "Truly this was the son of God." Directed George Stevens asked the Duke if he could say the line with a little more awe in his voice. Wayne complied on the next take by saying his line thusly: "Ahhhh, Surely this was the Son of God."

|1.9.06 @ 12:32AM|#

"With just a few days to go before the scheduled execution of a 76-year-old blind and deaf man who uses a wheelchair, there has been no public outcry of support for clemency for Clarence Ray Allen, who is white."

All of the modern racism that I see is perpetrated by the state via affirmative action and quotas, and by the weepy left who never met a white man that was worthy of respect, or a non-white that was worthy of ridicule. So, this lack of outrage about the execution of an old white man is not at surprising. By the way, Mr. Allen earned his walk to the gallows and it is long overdue.

|1.9.06 @ 1:30AM|#

You'd think Robertson could have come up with a better explanation for a massive stroke: Sharon was only about twice as heavy as he should have been.

Princess Diana could have worn her damn seatbelt, too.

raymond|1.9.06 @ 1:38AM|#

If anyone is interested in (more accurate) information about California's next scheduled ritual sacrifice of a defenceless human being, he can click here.

Matt|1.9.06 @ 2:50AM|#

I think Jon Stewart put it best when he said the cause for Sharon's stroke was by being fat and in a stressful situation. I'm putting it a little more politely.

|1.9.06 @ 3:59AM|#

My point is, relatively few people these days believe that when a storm kills a bunch of people, or a tsunami takes out 1/4 million, that it was because of one of the Gods. Zeus didn't do it. Thor didn't do it. The God of Abraham didn't do it.

Poseidon did it.

Ed|1.9.06 @ 8:30AM|#

Yeah, but Poseidondamnit! just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Joseph Hale|1.9.06 @ 8:52AM|#

Fogler's comments relied on the unstated assumption that to bless Israel means to agree with every belief and decision of certain Israelis, and that to fail to do so is to curse Israel. Note the implication that only the Israelis who agree with Fogler's similarly unstated positions on Israeli political issues are counted when it is determined whether one is blessing or cursing Israel.

|1.9.06 @ 9:38AM|#

John (IT guy) -- Thanks for the pointer to the Jefferson Bible.

It always bugs me when historical revisionists attempting to defend all manner of church-state mingling (Ten Commandments in the courtroom, prayer in schools, etc.) dredge up some evidence that Jefferson was religious. Well, yes, he was -- at least in some manner of speaking. Which says absolutely nothing about his belief in whether the government should play any role in religion. There is, in fact, no evidence that he believed in any such role, while there's a mountain of evidence that he acted wholeheartedly to keep the two separate.

Vache Folle|1.9.06 @ 9:49AM|#

Despite protestations to the contrary, Pat Robertson speaks for the religious right. He is very influential and wired into the regime, and he is quoted as often as he is because he is so important. The other Christofascist preachers are small potatoes, but they are saying the same kinds of things as Pat.

|1.9.06 @ 11:15AM|#

I love the story about John Wayne playing the centurion in The Greatest Story Ever Told...

My personal fav...Ernest Borgnine playing a centurion in Jesus of Nazareth...still wearing his Rolex.

|1.9.06 @ 12:34PM|#

Yes, Pat Robertson is a lunatic. So is Tom Cruise. And a good part of California. And a couple of northern states. Maybe all of France. And don't get me started on Antartica.

|1.10.06 @ 2:29AM|#

Murphy:
dredge up some evidence that Jefferson was religious. Well, yes, he was -- at least in some manner of speaking. Which says absolutely nothing about his belief in whether the government should play any role in religion.
--

You're missing the lynchpin of the Christianist mindset. As they see it, it is their DUTY to force their beliefs on everyone. If they don't, they're bad Christianists, which means they're bad human beings ('cause you can't be one without the other, duh!). Any time you hear one of them wailing about how they're being repressed, I'll betcha hard cash that someone has told them to leave other people alone. This is why I get worried about these cultists holding public office.

|1.10.06 @ 11:30AM|#

I think Robertson is a pussy besides the asshole in Iran because at least the Iranian asshole stand up for the whole Koran, while Robertson has watered down his version of the old testament to where he's only against banning gays from marriage instead of killing them outright. Not to mention not advocating the burning of wiccans or eating food cooked by women during their courses.

It's that slacker approach to religion that will be sending ole Pat straight to he double hockey sticks!

|1.10.06 @ 1:49PM|#

I was brought up methodist. At about age 15 I realized that organized religion wasn't for me. I believe that the only logical position you can take is to be an agnostic. The bible was written by man and centuries after the "fact" in many cases. Religous leaders then as now like to pick and choose as fits their point. The bible has been translated and language changes and therefor meanings may also change. There are too many inconsistencies in the Bible to believe it the literal word of God. Why is the old and new testament so different? I do believe that the teachings of Jesus (or buddha or gandhi and many other spriritual people) form the basis for a moral belief system. The fundamentalists are certainly not following Christ. They are intolerant, judgemental, pro business, anti environment, pro war, etc.... I always wondered what was going through peoples minds in the 50's during the McCarthy era, how could people be so stupid? Now I know, we are going through a similar era now, one that people will look at in the coming decades and wonder the same.