Pat Robertson on natural disasters

Its pretty clear that people like you and crash have made up your mind about this issue. I have no desire to try to convince you or anyone else of the effectiveness of how I conduct my public affairs with regards to political or other issues as long as my beliefs and social alliances are defacto dictated to me.Like I told crash. You are welcome to group people however you like. That is part of what makes freedom great. I am not here to convince you or him of anything because you already have an opinion of Christianity that I will likely be unable to change. In fact most of the discussions that go on here are like that. Two sides have their own opinion. The only reason I even posted that first post here and continued with crash was to make sure that anyone else reading this had the counter argument available especially with regards to what I consider biggotry toward my religion.Don't get me wrong. I hate what most Christians in US do and say just as much as the rest of you jaded folk. That is why I strive not to be like them in what I do both publically and privately. I just don't feel that it is either intellectually honest, or polite for that matter, to group people by absolutes for the reason of condemnation. There are good Christians out there who don't like the bad rep and terrible things that other people do in the name of God. As much as such a thing is hated though it is those folks right to believe how they believe and to call themselves Christian.No matter what I do or how much I disagree with Pat Robertson I would disagree even more with limiting his right to say what he wants. TO me that is what being a good American is all about. To me that is also what being a good Christian is all about.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Hi Jazzns:As someone who has been reading along, but up to now unwilling to participate in this particular thread, let me see if an outside neutral agent (myself) can help explain what I think Crashfrog is trying to say. Note that I am in no way claiming that my interpretation is correct, but rather this is just how I read it.I do believe that Crashfrog does understand what you are saying, but I'm not so sure that you understand his point. When you make statement s like this I have to sit back and say to myself: “Why do you think this way?” Sure, I guess it’s their right to “call” themselves a Christian. Is simply claiming to be a Christian good enough to become one? If not, and ones actions are considered as well, shouldn’t you guys point out . LOUDLY...the very Unchristian-like things Pat Robertson has done? I mean come on Jazzns, what must someone do to be considered NOT a Christian?That is the kind of thing that I think helps to help make Crash’s point. What I believe he's trying to say is that while he doesn't necessarily believe that you personally agree with Pat Robertson, by not publicly condemning what he says, you passively endorse his views. By not saying "I know a Christian, Mr Robertson...and you are no Chirstian" (sorry, but I couldn't resist ), then you do accept him into the Christian club and his views become yours as well. It really is that simple.Look, when Pat does something that one might view as a positive thing (and nothing comes to mind right now . ), the Christian Community applauds his actions. For the same reason they (the Christian Community) need to publicly condemn him when he makes outlandish statements as well. And yet they don't. Why his he still on TV? Why do people still send him money? Why are his views supported by many that call themselves Christians? Any guesses Jazzns? I think we both know the answer, and it goes a long way towards supporting Crash’s point.Do you understand what we're trying to get across here. If Pat Robertson does not hold Christian views, then it is up to you and all other Christians to let everyone know that Pat Robertson is no Christian. And make no mistake . he definitely claims to be a Christian. Personally, if I were lumped into a category that included this nut case, I would vociferously cry foul . and I would demand that my leaders, the leaders of my Church also condemn and speak out against him. But we do not see this happening do we? Where was the Christian outrage when he endorsed murder? Where was the Christian outrage when he blamed 9-11 on homosexuality ? Where was the Christian outrage when he claimed that God brought the Tsunami upon Indonesia, and the Hurricanes upon the Gulf States?If you want to claim membership in a group calling themselves “Christians” then you need to understand that Pat Robertson claims membership in that group as well, and since he has a rather large platform from which to speak, he probably voices his Christian view point to far more people than do you yours. So either he is a Christain and speaks for the group, or he is not a Christian, and his words should not be accepted as such. Which is it Jazzns? If it's the former then why are you complaining? If it's the latter, then why is he allowed by the Christian Community to continue? That's what Crashfrog is trying to get across (I think...if not, sorry Crash).So, no, I don’t think you’re an evil person, nor do I think Crash holds that view. What we’re trying to tell you is that unfortunately, because your “club” lets people like Pat Robertson claim membership, you are indeed lumped together with him and his ilk. You can allow him to stay, or do all that you can to exclude him, but it’s up to you (Christians) to take up the cause. And so far the Christian voice in opposition has been nothing but quite...so what are we left to assume...?

No. Actions speak louder than words. But see below. Nothing comes to my mind either. But that's what they should do. No, they shouldn't. That would be distinctly non-Christian. That they do not applaud him is sufficient condemnation. Actions speak louder than words.

First off, although I still disagree with you I would like to thank you for keeping it civil. Like I said before, no one owns the label Christian just like any number of other generic labels that we use in society. There is no official central Christian organization that keeps membership information. You do not have to subscribe to any officially sanctioned doctrine. Pretty much the only thing required is the belief in the deity of Christ and that is potentially where the similarities end. Yes and no. I think it is important for people to know that there are Christians out there who are not similar to Pat and his cohorts. That is pretty much the only reason I am participating in this discussion. Not because it is not my job to police the subjective doctrine of those who claim to be Christian. Also, it is the attitude of many Christians that they are not to be the judges of the hearts of men. IMO, the stereotypical Christian that would probably have issue with Pat Robertson are going to be the ones who strive to be humble and not participate against worldly things. They most they would do would be pray about it asking God to take care of the situation. That pretty much describes the Christian side of my family to a tee. I tend to be a little bit more reactionary and unfortunately those like me seem to fall among the vast minority of Christians. IMO of course. Not believe in Christ as a deity. That’s it....that is also .....the point. And I completely disagree. You may choose to believe that lack of a substantial uprising is tacit approval of his ways but that would only be your opinion. I tend to take the position that people are diverse and that beliefs can be as granular as the individual. Therefore such a blatant grouping of people and their subjective beliefs is at the very least borderline bigotry IMO. There is little difference between that and saying that I passively endorse Osama Bin Laden because I consider myself Arab and yet do not "publicly" condemn him. Osama does not speak for all Arabs, Pat does not speak for all Christians. The fatal flaw is that there is no such thing as a Christian club. Moreover, even if there was, default acceptance based on inaction is still invalid IMO. Because he has the right to be on TV and speak his mind. I care more about his right to do that then I do about any of this. Because in general people are stupid especially Christians. See previous. No I think you are starting to assign opinions to me based on a point that you think you made. What we have here is an arbitrary grouping of a subset of society whose beliefs are highly subjective and variable. You may choose to group them as such but again IMO that is wrong and in crash's case it was offensive. Says you. Again the only objective requirement for honestly calling yourself a Christian is belief in the deity of Christ. I have no necessary imperative, morally, intellectually, or otherwise, to meet your requirement for appropriate denouncement of Pat. He is a Christian. Maybe I didn't make that clear before. I am not disputing Pat's "status" as a Christian. I am only disputing that characteristics prescribed by folks like Pat are ubiquitous among Christians. This is an issue of generalizations and stereotyping, not validity. Well my point is that I do not consider there to even be a category so your are in a sense assuming your argument. What about those of us Christians who do not belong to a church and have no "leaders"? More generalizations but despite that it has been my experience that what the leaders of most churches would do would if it was important would be to address the situation to their congregation. That IS their "public". Despite the unfortunate failure to do so on many occasions, outrage is something that many Christians, that I know at least, try to avoid as part of doctrine. Sure. No dispute here. Only that said "group" is then typed and condemned as such. False dichotomy. He can both be a Christian, say what he does, and also not be accepted by many who are also Christians. Black or white? Up or down? A or B? Do you really believe that people can be grouped in such a way simply on who they think is God? Once again, fatally you create a Christian "community" that does not exist. That IS my point. The issue here is not the actions of the members of the "club", it is the existence of said "club". Once again says you. And also once again, being that there is no "club", no one is allowing him to say anything. Pat Robertson has the right to say what he wants to as an American. Assume what you like. I find that most of the time the people who assume, as my opponents have done thus far in this thread, are already predisposed against tearing down the stereotypes. It is a form of bigotry plain and simple. You are welcome to have a conception of Christianity based on whatever you like. You can base it off of Pat and his like all you want but please do so in full recognition that such a conception is limited by your very own choice.Thanks,

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

nwr makes a good point that I began to touch upon in my last post. Many Christians frequently do not get "all up in arms" over things. To assume that Christians should react in the way a political activist would react is just one more point against the stereotyping that is going on thus far.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

The point you keep ignoring, Jazz, is that we're not grouping you. You're grouping you. Knowing full well that Robertson calls himself a Christian, you've chosen to adopt that moniker as well - and refuse to explain why, or how any of the rest of us are supposed to automatically know that you and Robertson mean two different things by the term.It would be like, if I called myself a "Nazi", and you started to castigate me for my hatred of Jews and black people, and my aims of eugenics and Aryan supremacy, and I said "wait, hold on buddy, I'm not one of those Nazis. Hitler? Couldn't stand him. What an asshole. He certainly doesn't speak for me."I mean, how ridiculous would that be? If I don't want to be grouped in with, and associated with, the henious crims of Nazis, why on Earth would I call myself one? Why on Earth would you call yourself a Christian except to associate yourself with all the ideas, good and bad, that surround Christianity in our culture?Just to indicate that you follow Jesus Christ? I've already given you three words that would indicate that without associating you with Robertson, but you've apparently dismissed them. Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. Christans can badmouth other Christians all they like, but they're off-limits to the atheists. You want to experience bigotry? Start telling people you're an atheist.I don't want to hear a Christian living in America, of all people and societies, whine about "bigotry" directed at their faith. In a country that bends over backwards and tramples its own constitution to magnify your particular faith at the expense of all others, and of those of no faith, it's absolutely ridiculous for a Christian to make any claim of bigotry or persecution. He has no constitutional right to demand to be on TV, or to demand concessions from state and federal governments that no others enjoy, or to be lofted as a leading figure in Christianity. The fact that you're so ready to grant your tacit approval for those situations proves how hollow your weak protestations of unaffiliation truly are.

Jazzns: Thanks...you too. I love this kind of stuff (debate) I will not dispute the first half of this. However, I disagree with the last part . I think it's not the point. The point, as I understand it is as follows: When someone claiming to be a Christian says it’s ok to murder the freely elected leader of another country, or that the thousands of people killed as a result of the 9-11 attacks deserved it because some people in this Country are gay, or that Katrina was retribution on New Orleans because some of the people in that city are considered evil (judgment...how very unchristian like), don't be surprised when non-Christians consider Christians to be evil people. That's the point. Not true . there’s a huge difference . see below. But Osama does not claim to speak for Arabs...he claims to speak for Muslims and Al Qaeda. And I am of the opinion that members of those particular "groups" that do not speak out against him DO INDEED endorse his views...rightly or wrongly...that's the point! Ok, "club" was a poor choice of words. What would you call them...a community? Seriously...I have no idea. I disagree. Look, if someone joins the KKK because they like the hoods and enjoy getting together to have a few drinks and eat cookies...fine. But when a cross is burned or racist remarks are made by the leaders of that group...to sit back a claim that "hey...I'm not like that" is a bit ridiculous. Now, I know that you're probably going to claim that Pat Robertson is NOT your leader...but if you think that, then you are missing the point. He certainly his a leader in the Christian Community...and when he speaks, many people assume (correctly or incorrectly . it does not matter) he speaks for that community...like it or not. So do I. And neither Crashfrog nor myself are saying he should be denied that right (maybe he shouldn't remain tax exempt...). What we're (or at least I'm) saying is that he is speaking for the Christian Community and if the Christian Community doesn't agree with him then they should say so. Hey, some Christians probably agree with every word he says...but I also hope that a goodly number do not. Of course, no one knows because no Christian leaders that I know of have spoken out against his words. Ah...but see, I'm a bit more cynical than this. I think that at the grass roots, down home, country bumpkin level, you are correct. However, on a much broader scale...a National scale...I believe that the deafening silence we "hear" has more to do with the political sway and power Pat Robertson has than it does to do with stupidity. They (other Christian Leaders) are afraid to alienate Pat Robertson because of his close ties to this Administration. I'm not saying it's valid...I'm saying that, like it or not, that is how it is perceived...so don't complain when people lump you together with him. That is the point I have been trying to make.
I thought that that was what this was all about. Crashfrog basically lumped all Christians into one group and you said that that wasn't fair. We've been trying to tell you that maybe it isn't fair...but tough shit dude (and I mean that in a fun...high on dope sorta way )...that's how it is. Speak out in other ways. Send letters to the TV stations that broadcast his show. Send letters to the Gov pointing out the political aspect of his tax free organization. Let people know that he doesn't speak for the Christian community and doesn't seem to portray himself as a very good Christian. I don't know...you tell me. I agree. And this "Christian public" should do some of the things I listed above. But it sounds to me as if you’re saying that to be a proper Christian, you should just sit there and keep your mouth shut.Ok, to be a Christian all one has to do is accept the Deity of Christ. Fine, I can agree with that...it takes very little effort to call yourself a Christian. But what about actions, do they not count for anything? To be a Christian by name is one thing...apparently a very easy thing...but to live as a Christian? Hey, I don't know, but it seems to me that asking for our Government to murder someone we don't like is not very Christian (just to mention ONE of the things Pat Robertson has done). But as long as he accepts Jesus as his savior he is a Christian? Far be it from me to judge, but...well...fine...he's a Christian. I'm not asking you to judge his heart...I'm asking you to speak out against his actions. Ok...again maybe my choice of wording was poor. But are all Christian really suppose to just sit idly by, while another one says on national TV that it's ok to murder someone? See, this is where I think you are not quite understanding what I'm trying to say. Those of us who don't claim to be Christians often adopt a poor view of Christians because of people like Pat Robertson saying and doing the things they say and do. That's a fact of life and if you (a Christian) don't like the association, then you should do something about it, OR not get upset when the association is made. Bull, Jazzns. To say that there is no Christian Community is a bit naive. YOU may think that none exists, but a great many other people (including myself) do. This is what I (we?) have been trying to get across. Never claimed otherwise. And I suppose he also has to right to say whatever he wants in the name of a Christian, so don't be upset when I assume all Christians feel that way (I don't, but only because I know Pat Robertson...many others do not). I will. And don’t you get upset about those assumptions. That's the point.

I cannot speak for Crash, but you are right about me. Pat Robertson claims to speak for christians and millions of christians support him. To lump you in with him is human nature. Always has been, always will be. That is just a fact of human behavior. If you do not like that, it is up to you to do something about it.I made a point you did not reference. When I face people from other nations I cannot deny that president Bush represents me as a United States citizen. When you call yourself christian, you lump yourself in there with Pat.You might say you did not elect him leader of the Christians. Well, yes you did. I never voted for Bush, but I got him crammed down my throat by those who did. Christians (of which you are one) cast their dollar votes for Pat Robertson. Votes with dollars often carry more weight than those at the ballot box. (Witness Christian PACs)If you want to be a follower of Jesus Christ and you do not want to be associated (lumped) with Pat Robertson, you must find another name to reference your belief. If not you should expect to be lumped in with him. That is human nature.BTW: Look at the history of christianity. Do you really want to be a part of that?

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

It seems to me the issue is not about Christianity, Islam or even atheism, but about extremism. Regardless of how far we go to support the idea of a democracy and free will, no society can exist if extremisms are allowed to proceed unchallenged. And how more effective in reigning in radical views is it, if opposition comes not just from people outside the 'club' of the extremist, but from within the ranks of the movement? Haven`t we learnt the lessons of the last century in permitting extremism to grow out of hand? What does a nutcase like Pat have to do to provoke outrage from Christians? Suggest nuking Mecca as a hotbed of infidels? Demand the castration of gays? Relight the fires to burn atheists? Where does the comfort level peak and activism start?

Maybe you should reach less for the hyperbolic comparison. Here's a more realistic one...Do you consider yourself a US citizen? How about pro freedom and democracy?Right now Bush and Co have claimed the mantle of leadership of all three. That is they came into a pre-existing entity (or entities) and crowned themselves leaders of such things and do indeed have many followers that believe they are the leaders of such things.My guess is you would not claim you are anything but a US citizen, or that you are anti freedom and democracy. Instead you would say that these usurpers have stolen such titles and are inaccurately casting a shadow over their otherwise good name.Of course on the US citizen thing, you'd still be agreeing to the genocide which we, unlike Nazi germany, successfully commited to have the nation we have today. Unless of course you can divorce yourself from past atrocities as well.Although your analogy was not wrong, you reached for an obvious disparity rather than to try and find a similarity between what Jazzns was doing to something you might actually do. When confronting someone's position start by finding the similarities.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, I don't have a choice about referring to myself as a US citizen. That's a factual statement about my legal citizenship.Titles like "pro-democracy" and "Christian" are entirely voluntary, however, and it's because of the exact influence to which you refer that I would think long and hard about applying them to myself; I would realize that to do so means that, in some minds at least, I'm associating myself with the likes of Bush or Pat Robertson. You have your style, I have mine. When I rebut positions based on principles - for instance, a principle that you can adopt a group idenity without implying association with that group - I reach for the most compelling, most accessable, and most obviously contradictory example of that principle. It's called "reducto ad absurdum."

Once again showing that people at EvC like to pretend they understand logic when they don't. Choosing the opposite is not necessarily a reductio. It is usually choosing the same thing and extending it to a conclusion which is not necessarily desired by the opponent.I am unsure whether Jazzns would find it curious that a person who claims to be a nazi would be surprised when people don't understand his actual position, but he would not necessarily have to suggest people should or should not. Thus your argument really doesn't reduce his position to the absurd... at least not to Jazzns.You were arguing that it is mistaken to use the name of something that has a identifiable or popular leader or history if you do not share those exact same things. That is why I used an example of something you might ascribe to yourself, yet not want to reject simply because someone or some group is hijacking that name.That is to say I was using a reductio... even if it did not work because you are willing to reject pro democracy/freedom labels. That citizenship is voluntary. What's more that has nothing to do with identifying yourself as US. Do you feel american and would you say to others you are an american? If someone said you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American, would you say they are mistaken because you can be American and not a Bush supporter? That is fair, but then does not address the point you appeared to be making to Jazzns. Whether one should realize associations may be made errantly, due to generalizations, does not implicate the person who goes on to use the label, nor let the errant generalizer off the hook.Would someone be right to say that being prodemocracy means supporting Bush and Bush's actions, or is it more accurate to say that being prodemocratic could include many other positions and one should not get lumped in with any specific other?You were saying that people could be confused regarding what Xians might be like based on leaders like Robertson, while Jazzns was suggesting that Xian (like prodemocratic) is very broad and so such generalizations were errant and unfair.As much as I agree mistakes could be made, and Robertson is a jerk, Jazzns is correct about overgeneralizing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Of course, I could just as easily reply that I've never been to a church that didn't have his literature on hand; on the other hand, I doubt you would take my anecdotal evidence very seriously. How do you suppose I'm going to react to yours?

​

But I invite you to investigate your claim further. Go to any of the churches you're referring to. See if they subscribe to a one-page fax newsletter called "The Pastor's Weekly Briefing." My church hands out copies every sunday.

​

If they do, then they're promulgating Pat Robertson and his ideas. This newsletter regularly features his responses, reactions, and opinions on current events. It's put out by the Focus on the Family organization. I've found a copy in just about every Protestant church I've ever looked in.

---

I elieve that Roman Catholics are the single largest Christian denomination in the US, and you know thay don't pay no nevermind to Pat.Crash, Ithink that you are being unreasonable.Just as many members of the NRA do not support it's minority radical leadership and crazy Charlton Heston, many Protestant Christians do not support Robertson.

quote:

---

What does a nutcase like Pat have to do to provoke outrage from Christians? Suggest nuking Mecca as a hotbed of infidels? Demand the castration of gays? Relight the fires to burn atheists? Where does the comfort level peak and activism start?

---

I do actually think that the "normal majority" of Christians have been far too complicit in letting Pat Robertson have free reign and his lofty platform.Catholics, for example, were rightly outraged when they found out that the Church leadership had had a longstanding protection and relocation program for pedophile priests. They held the church's feet to the fire for a long time and even got Rome to respond.Shouldn't Protestants be doing the same thing with Robertson?

Hmm I thought I remember someone saying: Message 7I guess it is all subjective what one considers improper and/or ad hominem but we have at least 2 dissenting voices so far... Yes. That is becaues I have good reason to dismiss them. Why should I have to change just because he and others are ruining things? I never said that. Once again you are putting words into my mouth. If you wanted to say that many Christians in America were mindless drones who are destroying progress towards an ideal America then I would completely agree with you. I am sorry for whatever bad experience you have had with regards to this. Really truly I am. But what does this have to do with anything that I said? People who group all athiests together for the purposes of condemnation fall exactly under the same category of what I was talking about. I am sorry crash but we are not talking about the bigotry of some abstract entity towards Christianity we are talking about your bigotry towards it. It does not make it any less stereotyping just because it is something that we have a common political interest to fight against. I'll stand next to you any day either on the protest line or in the trench to fight those things you are talking about. But he does have the constitutional right to demand those things crash. He does not have the constitutional right to have his demands met but I would give my life if necessary to protect his and my right to demand those things. I have not once granted approval for those situations only for this right to say it.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show