Democrats & Liberals Archives

Could it be..... SATAN!?!?!?!

When the Church Lady said it on Saturday Night Live, it was a joke. When Pat Robertson says it, it tends not to be that funny. He joined Jerry Falwell in that infamous blaming of 9/11 on secularists, gays and other pet peeve populations of theirs. Well, let it never be said that he learned his lesson from that particular screwup. Now he says that Haiti’s Earthquake is a result of a pact with Satan. And no, I’m afraid I’m not making it up.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2010 5:40 PM
Comments
Comment #293715

S.D.
Believing what Pat Robertson says is like believing Democrats walk on water and that all the problems that they have are the fault of Republicans. Pat Robertson is a radical loon.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2010 6:06 PM
Comment #293717

And… this is a political issue because?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 13, 2010 6:25 PM
Comment #293718

Rhinehold, Robertson speaks for a large number of fundamentalist right evangelical Christians who vote Republican and make up a part of the GOP and Palin base. Which demonstrates why it is that so many Republican voters require no evidence or proof, only faith, upon which to cast their repeated votes for those who espouse the Right sounding rhetoric.

Of course, a similar contingent of voters exists on the Left as well who follow spokespersons of organizations like PETA, Sierra Club, and Universal Health Care proponents. There is however, a significant difference in the content of the message coming from these spokespersons as opposed to Pat Robertson, even if there is no difference in their techniques of sophistry.

Robertson is very often contradictory. On the one hand he espouses that the children do not in the eyes of God or Jesus inherit the sins of the parents, absolving Christians today of their parent’s slavery, torture, and debauchery. Then, he turns right around and makes the case for Haitians inheriting the consequences of the sins of their parents.

At least the data coming from the likes of PETA and the Sierra Club is empirically verifiable or debunked, leaving followers with the potential for objective acceptance of their spokesperson’s rhetoric, or not. Not so with FREC’s.

Religion can bring out the best in people. It can also manipulate the ignorant and uneducated. As Aristide’s predecessors amply demonstrated during their reign of terror and subjugation over Haitians.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2010 6:47 PM
Comment #293726

DRR
Most of the people that listen to Robertson are a minority just like the radical left. Yes they are the uneducated just like those who believe Democratis left wingers. Most of the conservatives I know think Robertson is a loon and should not be carrying the title Reverand.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2010 7:44 PM
Comment #293728

Those who would call the destruction in Haiti God’s Will are vicious and misinformed. We commonly call violent acts of nature an “Act of God” and we all know that is false. Neither I or anyone else knows the mind or will of God.

Who can explain why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people? Not me and certainly not the Rev Robertson.

I don’t believe God singles out non-believers for punishment or believers for rewards in this life. His Kingdom is not of this world.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 13, 2010 8:04 PM
Comment #293731

Speaking of nutty preachers, we all know that our current president attended services by Rev Wright, who was just as crazy and hated America to boot.

There are plenty of weirdos to go around.

Posted by: Christine at January 13, 2010 8:17 PM
Comment #293740

What if I told you all the new governor of Virginia was educated at this man’s university, as were many of the Bush Administration’s Lawyers?

Jack-
The bible says many things. In Isaiah, the prophet finds God not in thunder or Earthquakes, but in a small, still voice.

In the New Testament, the question is posed philosophically when Jesus decides to heal the man blind from birth, and Jesus rejects that his misfortune is due to his sin, or that of his parents.

I think the real test is not whether you come to Jesus over Haiti, it’s whether you support the aid effort there. Cursed or not cursed, Haiti is quite literally our neighbor, and we are called upon to love our neighbors.

This amounts to spreading malicious gossip about our neighbors.

All too often, religious involvement in current events and political matters seems to lack the small still voice or the duty-bound love of one’s neighbor. You only hear about it when somebody’s considering a pornography law, a measure against gay marriage, or anti-abortion efforts.

Meanwhile, healthcare reform is neglected, even if you allow that it could have conservative solutions. Nobody really busied themselves with any clear solutions. Meanwhile, a culture of dishonesty, of thievery, and lazy speculative manipulations has pervaded the business world, with people justifying all sorts of awful things. Folks act like Randians and then call themselves Christians. The contradiction is not lost on the Secular.

I grew up secular, and became a fully confirmed Christian after Colleged, and in no small part, it was because I finally was given a glimpse of how deeply embedded doctrines of forgiveness and acknowledgement of human imperfection were in the Bible, and how much of an emphasis there was of acting like a Christian, not just preaching like one. I found out that the Jesus of the scripture was just as ticked off at the people who made a big show of how pious they were, that he too didn’t appreciate those people who held themselve above their fellow man.

But to learn of that Jesus It took a deliberate decision, for other reasons, to go to college at that evangelical college.

Few Secularists get that opportunity, or impose itself on them. The question then becomes for the religious, and those who want to deal with them on political issues, how one relates both the religion, and the reasons for taking policy in a certain direction.

The religious conservatives of this country have to better express the richness of their faith, and learn to deal with folks like I was in a more firt-principles kind of way, making arguments that make sense with the absence of relgious elements as well as the presence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2010 11:17 PM
Comment #293750

Stephen

Governor of Virginia? What if I told you that the President of the United States had spent twenty years listening to sermons by a racist nut case?

You keep on bringing up these kinds of things and blaming Republicans for even things Democrats do. Roberston is an old man. He is influential in some circles (as was Wright). It is not the spokesman for all (or even most) conservatives and he is not the spokesman for all (or most) Republicans. Just as Rev Wright does not speak for all Democrats of liberals.

So lets agree. Roberston, Wright, Sharpton etc make stupid statements. Nobody here is defending them. Trying to play the guilt by association card is not really valid when there is an association. Here you don’t even have that connection.

Posted by: Christine at January 14, 2010 7:37 AM
Comment #293752

Christine-
That view of Rev. Wright is more or less what you get when you only know of the things he said which got broadcast on Fox News.

And even if the guy had some influence on Obama, Obama made this speech in response to the issue. In the end, he disowned him. He responded to the political pressure not to dignify Wright’s offensive commentary.

In the interests of full disclosure, I studied for my degree under a former student of Jerry Falwell. If you raised that influence, you’d be justified. But if you were fair-minded, you’d ask the question, does Stephen, or even the guy associated with him share those beliefs?

Well, not necessarily so much in my Professor’s case, and definitely not so much in my case.

The governor is another matter. He even has Robertson invited to his inauguration. His policy positions are decidedly conservative.

So, the difference should be clear: I’ve got a connection to one of the people who made that comment about 9/11, at second hand. But I’m sure my professor and myself found those comments offensive. My professor described a man basically surrounded by folks who didn’t say no to him.

And I think that’s the critical thing here. You look at Obama, and you see much less bombastic of a personality than Rev. Wright, much less inclined to hyperbole, much more inclined to make peace with others. Do you recall the whole kerfluffle with Gates? How that ended? Over beers.

And now, sadly, Christine, you’re going to explain what another one of your top figures is saying.

We’ve both got people on our side of the spectrum who talk without thinking. The difference is how many of those people are locked behind walls of sycophants and supporters who don’t tell them no, don’t hold them accountable when they say things like this.

I know you don’t support this. Question is, how many people are going to hear what Rush says, among the many Republicans, and take up his views. How many people are Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson stumbling blocks for?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2010 8:06 AM
Comment #293753

Robertson has had literally millions of followers over his career compared to a small fraction of that for Wright. Also, there have been a few threads on this site about Wright. Lastly, the article did not blame Republicans unlike the Wright articles that blame Obama.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 14, 2010 8:09 AM
Comment #293758

S.D.
The left wingers have the likes of Jackson,and Sharpton. The right wingers have the likes of Robertson, and Dobson. Each have a following of radicals. Each one comes out the woodwork when their agendas are getting trampled on. As C.T.Rich said each is getting the mega bucks. Nobody with any kind of intelligence puts any credence inany of them.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2010 10:14 AM
Comment #293765

There are plenty of weirdos to go around… and most of them seem to be religious, isn’t that odd?

Posted by: gergle at January 14, 2010 10:38 AM
Comment #293780

KAP-
The Problem is, the Right has put radicals like these in charge. If you listen to what they say, and what the politicians soon pick up, it’s often alarmingly similar.

Republicans need to be more objective about their politics and policies. People like them help feed this feedback loop of craziness that is smothering the ability of Republicans to work and play well with others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2010 12:23 PM
Comment #293782

Same could be said about Democrats politics and policies Stephen. It’s time you realized that both parties have their share of loons. Jackson ran for President just like Robertson once did. By the way your party has put radicals in charge to. BHO’s Czars are an example.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2010 12:50 PM
Comment #293787

Pat Robertson is no more or less than a parasite, sucking his living off the beliefs of the gullible, the foolish, and the emotionally impaired (of whom there are apparently plenty), with his lies, fairytales, and the total baloney that comprises religion. It is pathetic that anyone, no matter what their politics, should give any credence to this miserable fraud.

Posted by: capnmike at January 14, 2010 2:48 PM
Comment #293790


The far right and the far left have terrible policies and are poor at governing.

It is the centrists who have all the bright ideas for policy and who are good at governance. The proof is in the pudding.

D. R. is right. Universal health care is a horrible far left idea that is totally unacceptable in a Corpocracy.

Posted by: jlw at January 14, 2010 3:56 PM
Comment #293796

KAP-
It could be said, could be argued, but I don’t think it could quite be proved. If you look at the people Barack Obama’s put in charge, they tend to be centrists. Unfortunately, too many on the right consider the political spectrum exclusively from their position, and do not recognize mainstream political positions for the country when they see them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2010 4:57 PM
Comment #293800

S.D.
Centrist, the radical left side of Centrist. What BS.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2010 6:04 PM
Comment #293855

KAP-
You tell me: if the Republicans are so centrist, why are they cutting off every centrist candidate they have at the knees, even if they’re more popular than the fellows they put in their place?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2010 11:07 PM
Comment #293862

S.D.
You are the only one bringing up Republicans. All I mentioned is that each group has it’s set of loons. It’s time you looked at your own party and addmitted to their faults. Democrats are their own worst enemy.

Posted by: KAP at January 16, 2010 8:07 AM
Comment #293910

KAP-
I’ve heard everybody from Jim Webb to that Greer guy from Florida who was spouting some kind of birther nonsense or something labelled as too far left.

I mean the categories are so unreal as to be useless for figuring out who’s reasonable as a candidate. That’s why I stick to more objective criteria, such as a person’s willingness to deal with actual problems.

I confront my share of political purists in my own party, and I can tell you I’m not any more impressed with them, than with others who get too wrapped up in the politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2010 12:17 AM
Comment #293933

S.D.
So you are admitting that your party is just as screwed up as the other. A persons willingness to deal with actual problems could be anyone even if he is unqualified for whatever office. No matter what anyone says I still think BHO was unqualified to hold the presidency. Yes he has a willingness to tackle problems but I think he bit off to much to soon.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2010 1:01 PM
Comment #293940

KAP-
First, Obamn was going to have to cleanup Bush’s messes regardless of what ambitions he might have had or not had coming into office. Second the Republicans have done their utter best to confound him.

No, I don’t think he took on too much. No, I think that fo1ks on the Right simply picked a poor role model for how hard a President is supposed to work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2010 3:23 PM
Comment #293953

Right S.D. the stimulus that isn’t working, unemployment @10%, a piss poor HC bill, plus the bringing of enemy combatants to the U.S to stand trial thereby putting this country at risk for terror attacks. As far as cleaning up Bush’s mess he is only adding to it.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2010 6:12 PM
Comment #293965

KAP-
The stimulus worked. The consensus among economists is there, even at the American Enterprise Institute. It promoted growth where it otherwise wouldn’t have occured. That’s a proven fact by now, your contempt for it notwithstanding.

If it weren’t for that, the unemployment would be much worse. And let me remind you that this unemployment was coming down the line anyways, because of the economic failure the year before last.

As for bring the combatant here? Isn’t it interesting that Liberals nowadays don’t shrink from the fear of terrorists, and conservatives do? Has it occured to you that acting as if they’re bigger scary threats than they actually are to us does them a favor?

I will not flinch in fear from putting terrorism suspect to trial, and punishing the guilty.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2010 11:27 PM
Comment #294477

What would happen if the document turned up with “proof positive” signed in blood with a DNA match to a direct decendant?
Come on Pat Robertson. Start looking for it. Prove it!

Posted by: Stephen Hines at January 23, 2010 7:43 PM
Post a comment