Knee Jerking and Pat Robertson
[Note: The Author asks that the content be read through as a whole, and digested. I'm sure plenty of readers will be incensed at different points, but that's the nature of highly controversial positions- they cause turmoil. Bear with the author and read through.]
Today, good readers, I’m sure everyone’s heard Pat Robertson’s remarks regarding the ‘divine retribution’ visited upon Ariel Sharon for compromising the territory of the State of Israel. Likewise, I’m sure they’ve heard it in the context of an incensed public that is rebuking Robertson, and castigating his chosen position as ‘evil’.
I first heard about the situation from my wife who is Jewish– she was a bit miffed, her first reaction being aghast at Robertson. My own first thought was ‘That’s an impolitic thing to say for Pat. He’s not been able to keep his foot out of his mouth lately.’
Then, I considered the logic of Robertson’s position. Robertson is a man who is more concerned with being forthcoming and honest with his belief than he is with the popularity of his views — and that is a commendable quality. Anyone can say that which is popular, but to stick to core principles which are not the values of a public information class is extremely hard.
I don’t mind people being upset with Robertson, if they’re genuinely disturbed by his position. However, I do worry that this illustrates one of the large problems with the modern religious community, particularly the Christian and Jewish communities.
These people who castigate Robertson are usually religious — they choose to observe one set of principles for history, and another for current events, though.
The Anti-Defamation League’s US Director, Abraham H. Foxman said “It is outrageous and shocking, but not surprising, that Pat Robertson once again has suggested that God will punish Israel’s leaders for any decision to give up land to the Palestinians. His remarks are un-Christian and a perversion of religion. Unlike Robertson, we don’t see God as cruel and vengeful.”
Yet, if the Torah and Talmud are the origin points of belief, it is a strain on credibility to claim that one believes in the Plagues of Egypt, commandments to slaughter the inhabitants of the Promised Land to a man, and yet hold that God has changed his ways with the advent of mass culture. Was there a Talmudic statement of that five thousand plus years of Jewish religious tradition has overlooked that said God would quit messing around with people after the first 4,000?
Jews in the mid to late 20th century had to wrestle with the theological implications of the Shoah, and what it meant about God’s involvement with the Universe — a horrible, dispicable act befell Jews, the self-ascribed Chosen People of God. How could God let them suffer? Was God, to paraphrase a popular culture reference, now an absentee landlord? Jewish theologians have overwhelming rejected the notion, though they claim no final understanding of God’s intent or reason can be held by mankind to have been involved in allowing the Shoah.
Christians, on the other hand, usually have the New Testament dichotomy with the Old Testament to point to as a reason for theologically breaking from the traditional God of the Torah. God makes compromises, mostly stops slinging fireballs, and begins allowing people to be redeemed to enter the kingdom of Heaven; clearly, this is a very different God than the one who turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn replied to Robertson’s comments by saying
“Pat Robertson has a political agenda for the entire world, and he seems to think God is ready to take out any world leader who stands in the way of that agenda.”
Presumably the good Reverend Lynn is Christian — but one wonders if he believes the actions of Herod or of Pontius Pilate weren’t the result of God’s intervention in the world. Perhaps he doesn’t believe that the power of the Holy Spirit protected early Christians from persecution, or that the Roman Legionares didn’t flee Christ’s tomb in fear when He arose. I’m fine with Lynn if he thinks that this applies only to the Robertson agenda– but am quite worried if a Christian minister thinks that God does not actively participate in the world. One wonders if the Christian faith is going the way of St. Nicholas of of Myra, to become a facet of culture divorced from its original position in life.
Consistency is something I admire, even in those with whom I disagree. Principles aught to be unyeilding to circumstance.
Robertson’s public pronounciations are indeed tasteless, ill-timed, and generally not very nice, as Ariel Sharon clings to life in an Israeli hospital today. Sharon’s recovery prospects look extremely bleak, and Robertson could at least have waited until his next book to say that God was punishing Israel for compromise. Robertson, though, is not obfuscating what he feels about the situation, unlike the media’s treatment of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who said of Sharon, “Hopefully, the news that the criminal of Sabra and Chatilla has joined his ancestors is final.â€
Pointing out that Robertson has said that Sharon deserved the ill placed upon his head because he flouted God’s will is popular– but pointing out that only a Muslim leader has publically rejoiced at the prospect of his death is intolerant of other beliefs.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a arrogant little man who wants to grown Iran into a world power. That he vocally celebrated the illness of Sharon is not at all suprising. And if it is not suprising or shocking… then its not really newsworthy in today’s news world. That the most watched Christian minister in the US proclaimed that the illness of the Israeli Prime Minister was the wrath of God made manifest though is news.
To recap: two enemies wishing for each other’s death is not news, it is expected. An ally and friend proclaiming that ill health is the wrath of God is newsworthy. If CNN tried to report on every enemy that Sharon has who is dancing a jig because he had a stroke that would be all that they would be doing for the next week… and the viewing audience would get tired of it very quickly.
In my own opinion I agree with John Stewart. Sharon’s stroke is more because of overweight, stress, and age instead of God’s wrath… unless God compelled Sharon to eat all those extra knishes.
I look at Pat Robertson exactly how I look at Jesse Jackson – a blowhard who will say whatever ridiculous bullshit it takes to keep his face on the TV screens.
I dunno, I think that ole Patty-boy overstepped his bounds a little with his comment. Aside from him being a callous ass, of course.
Nothing about Christianity ever said that the Jews were no longer God’s chosen people. In fact, the last time I checked, most churches these days still pretty much viewed them that way, just in that fallen-out-of-favor phase that seems to happen with them a lot.
Now, last time I checked, ole Patty also wasn’t a Jewish Prophet. In fact, I’d have to asphinctersayswhat him if he started claiming himself to be any kind of Prophet. But definately not a Jewish Prophet.
Now, were he someone like, say, my favorite Elijah saying this, I might pay attention.
Given that he isn’t a Rabbi, or a Prophet, or really anything except a CHRISTIAN evangelist, well, I think that he should take a nice big dose of shut-the-fuck-up.
Just because Christianity spawned from Judaism does not give Christians rights to pass judgement on a Jew’s faith. Period.
ps: my knee-jerk reaction was last night, calmed by John Stewart
I think that focusing on who the person that made the statement is, instead of focusing on the idiotic nature of the statement itself, is intellectual laziness. It doesn’t matter who or what Pat Robertson is or isn’t, what matters is the bullshit that he spews. In other words, don’t go down the path of “you don’t have a right/aren’t qualified to say that”, because anyone and everyone is qualified to say anything they want. What they say, however, may be feces-laden.
Why thank you Impie for pointing out my laziness. *winks*
I wasn’t being lazy. I think that focusing just on the statement made (or statements in Patty’s case, he makes so many…) risks missing the whole picture.
I didn’t focus on the statement because EVERYONE is focused on the statement. I could sit here and simply recycle all of the things that people have said, but then I am little more than a pundit myself if I do.
Instead, I chose to take a deeper examination into this case. To look not just at the ass-holeish nature of what Robertson said, or its truly unchristian quality, would be to not look at all that is wrong with what Roberston has done.
Yes, he has the right to say anything that he wants, “feces-laden” or not. That does not mean, however, that he should say whatever they wants. Because there are (unfortunately) a number of people who look to Pat Robertson for guidance, he needs to be, um, careful about how he exercises some rights.
What is wrong isn’t just what Robertson said. What is wrong is also the presumptions made by Robertson’s words. It’s that he does these things, says these things, being someone who so many people look to for spiritual guidance. That this man says these things in Christ’s name saddens me greatly.
It isn’t that I don’t think that God acts in the world. I just don’t think that Pat Robertson is the tool of God (read: Prophet) to determine when things like Hurricane Katrina or Sharon’s stroke are in fact acts of God.
Publie:
I am sure that Rev. Lynn is Christian (Reverends tend to be), even though he is executive director of something so obviously ungodly as Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
I don’t think you should use this to question Lynn’s beleif about Biblical happenings. He isn’t talking about Herod or the Legionaires. He is talking about Pat Robertson. I think, given that Robertson thinks that the 10 Commandments should be posted in public places and Lynn is the head of the AUSCS that Lynn is probably more concerned with Robertson’s agendas than Herod’s.
To look not just at the ass-holeish nature
should read: To look just at the ass-holeish nature…
I should re-read before I post posts that I have started and stopped mid-sentence.
I’m simply tired of people dismissing or acceptin something simply because “X” said or published it, regardless of whom “X” may be. I understand that it provides some context, but, like I said before, going down that path tends to taint what you have to say.
And I never accept the idea “because people listen to what you have to say, you should be careful about what you say”, because if those people aren’t thinking critically enough to disregard idiot statements, they’re doing the same thing I warned against above. And if they don’t have enough sense to disregard idiot statements, then I could care less about them in the first place.
I once had a conversation with a very sage person about critical thinking. We were debating whether or not it should be required in high schools. I argued that it shouldn’t be. If people in large number were equipped with the skills to think critically, then it would lead to a break down in our government, as they would come to realize that 1. things are just that fucked up and 2. that the alternative isn’t any better. I won, by the way…with a logical fallacy.
There is a point.
Most people don’t know how to think critically. They don’t know how to look at someone that they accept as having some kind of leadership role in thier life (be it President, Priest, Minister, etc) and listening to them with discernment, examining arguments and coming to conclusions for themselves.
For most people, the “buzz words” of critical thinking, the logical fallacies, are just things they’ll need to remember for a test. When it is done and over and they aren’t in the class anymore, how many of them really remember the difference between a Strawman and a Ad Hominem? How many would be able to catch a Slippery Slope? These aren’t unintelligent people, per se. I think that they just feel (wrongly unfortunately) that these are not things they will have to worry about in the “real world”.
It is amazing how many logical fallacies I hear coming out of the administration, pundits, and even many of the liberals. While I could see Bush using them out of sheer ignorance, most of these people are not idiots. Some of them are frighteningly intelligent. So why use them? Because they know that they have a good chance of getting the fallacy to work. So long as they are not outright lying (or lying about something the public and/or press already has concrete information about), the people may not recognize the fallacy at all.
Hence, for those who should be honest with thier people (coughministerscough), they should take care of what they say. When people are looking to you for moral guidance, you have the responsibility to set an example. This is something that ALL ministers are taught, actually. Having known so many good ones in my life, Robertson shames me.
By the way, not everyone is “qualified” to talk about something. They have the “right” to, but that doesn’t make them “qualified”. I can comment all day about how pregnant women should eat on an internet message board. However, I am not qualified to stand up before an assembly of health professionals and say it as though I am an authority.
When Robertson gets up on CBN and talks, he isn’t some buffoon on a message board. He is speaking as a spiritual professional with an air of authority and there are people who will assume, because they are part of the CBN/700 Club flock, that he has that authority. He does not. It isn’t the only thing wrong with what he said, and it isn’t the only thing I find wrong with what he said. It is the only thing wrong that no one seems to be talking about, and that is why I chose to focus on it.
But as it is, he has the right to say it. He is not qualified to say it in any medium which promotes him as an authority.
But then we get into the argument of who is qualified to do what. How are you qualified to speak about Pat Robertson and his qualifications or status as a religious leader? Are you a minister, have you had the religious training and experience that Pat Robertson has? If not, how are you qualified to criticize him?
This reminds me of the people who say that if you haven’t fought in a war or been a soldier, you’re not qualified to speak on whether our should engage in a particular military action or not. Which is complete horseshit, IMHO.
So, we come back to who determines who is qualified to speak about what. In truth, it’s the people who listen to what a person has to say who determine whether a person is “qualified” enough for them to agree with what he/she has said or not. If they determine that they should agree with him/her, they will generally decide that the person they are listening to is qualified to speak on that issue. If they don’t agree with this person, then they will generally agree that the person isn’t qualified to speak on the issue.
So, while you don’t feel that Pat Robertson is qualified to speak on this issue, many people obviously do. And, what’s more, they think he’s correct. How are you qualified to tell us that their assessment is any more competent than yours?