I find Robertson's recent remarks on assassinating Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela, to be just appalling. Even conservative Christians consider Robertson a nutjob. The guy is definitely a few French Fries shy of a Happy Meal, if you catch my drift. I mean, it's not like I'm out-of-hand dismissing the idea of taking out foreign heads of state that are highly hostile to the U.S., but to have a supposedly religious leader calling for something like this is just plain creepy.

Like Bush, God speaks directly to Robertson.
I'm jealous.

There are several threads about Robertson on the various Musings--in the Definition of Evil one and in the Politics on TV thread. I'm not sure if you want to concentrate them here.

Might be a good idea to drop all of them here in a one stop shopping place.

And yeah Robertson is almost like having our own mullah(sp?) to issue fatwahs. And people wonder why I call folks like him Christian Taliban.

Luigi,

... I mean, it's not like I'm out-of-hand dismissing the idea of taking out foreign heads of state that are highly hostile to the U.S., ...

Wow. I don't know if I'm reading you right here - do you mean there are instances where you would agree with this idea? You are only appalled because a religious leader proposes this?

Or were you only refering to the sad fact that the US intelligence agencies (CIA) have in the past meddled in other countries affairs in such a dirty way only to further US interests (or help US companies interests?), to remind people of the dirty history?

Only guessing here, but I'm thinking Luigi may have been referring to instances where we were

a. actually at war with a foreign leader
b. dealing with a foreign leader who is violently hostile towards the U.S.

For instance, I wouldn't object if we had assassinated Hitler in WWII or Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War. If Osama Bin Laden somehow became the head of a country, I would have no problem with taking him out either.

Well, constanze, if we were to knock off Fidel Castro or Mullah Omar, you wouldn't hear any complaints from me.

If Robertson is serious about the assassination, he should step down from the pulpit.

Jesus Christ didn't go around plotting assassinations, so why should Robertson?

To be fair, Pat Robertson has apologized for the comment. Doesn't mean I think he's sincere in his apology, mind you...

"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

If Robertson is serious about the assassination, he shouldn't announce his plans in front of the entire freaking world. How crappy a job of Black Ops planning is that?

You gotta wonder who he thought he might convince with this. Conservatives aren't going to go for it. Liberals aren't going to go for it. The CIA's not going to suit up for a mission that the target knows is coming. Who's the target audience here?

Luigi,

the US has tried numerous times to kill Fidel Castro, although he is no real threat to the US (other then being a communist close to your shores; I'm talking about real danger here).

So, have you considered the next step: if the US is allowed to assassinate leaders of countries they perceive as dangerous - is the leader of North Korea or Iran allowed to assassinate Bush, since it's a real threat that he will attack them sooner or later?

Or is there a law that says since the US is the good guy, they're allowed to break the rules, but nobody else can do the same, since everybody else is bad guy?

I think it's just part of the game. That's why they have bodyguards.

So you wouldn't mind if Fidel Castro attempts to knock out Bush? You wouldn't scream bloody murder and call for the US to invade that country and level it if somebody suceeded?? Yeah, that I'll believe.

I'd certainly scream for Fidel to be killed.

I was shocked to hear of this matter. Sadly,I think Mr. Robertson is suffering the (mental) effects of aging. MAYBE. I say this as a person who voted for him in 1988.

Brill, I don't think that it has anything to do with aging, since it matches much of what else he has said in the past.

He has suggested in the past that a meteor could strike Florida because of unofficial "Gay Days" at Disney World and that feminism caused women to kill their children, practice witchcraft and become lesbians.http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html

Claimed that the portion of the U.S. Constitution that pertains to the separation of church and state was not in the original Constitution and was forged onto it by a Communist spy sent to Washington, DC, by the Russians in the late 1920s. According to Robertson, the original framers of the Constitution were told by God that the United States was to be governed by a coalition of ministers, businessmen and property owners, and that the words "democracy" and "republic" are nowhere to be found in the original U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. [1996]http://imdb.com/name/nm0731979/bio

Wow! I wonder how he explains references to democracy in the Federal Papers or contemporary documents written by the Founding Fathers?

Obvious forgeries as well!

Constanze, Castro was a threat to the U.S. which is why, at the time, we attempted to kill him. Is he a threat now? Well, not to the U.S. as a country. Just to freedom and the completeness of families that were ripped apart by him, many of which live in my town.

Does that fact that we're the good guys allow us to do this? As a matter of fact.........yes. Well, that, and the other important things to consider, like if or how that country would reatliate, whether the dicator in question would simply be replaced by another, etc. Of course Iran or North Korea might justify attempts on their part to do this, but of course they would. That's what the bad guys do: rationalize their crimes. But obviously, they're not going to, because they know that the American public (even those who hated Bush) would not stand for the assassination of their President by a foreign country, and would scream for war if that happened. Yeah, I'd scream for Fidel's head on platter (along with most citizens of my hometown). Did I ever indicate otherwise?

FOX News showed some of their sensitivity by inviting a former CIA man on Hannity's Show. He recommended that we assassinate world leaders all over the globe. It's nice to see that there are people who support Robertson's views.

Luigi i have to admit i am not exactly comfortable with the US (or any country really)using assassination as a political tool. As a military tool yeah thats cool. In war leaders are a valid target. In peace even a dictator should be off limits to direct attack like that. There are more political and economic means to bring about social/political change. ESPECIALLY in a modern interconnected world that we live in.

Also we are the good guys, but we are not te only good guys. Working together through actual coalitions and peaceful cooperation should always be the first choice and not going off rogue like the schoolyard bully that the US has unfortunately done. Not to mention that since we are one of the good guys we should hold oourselves to a higher standard of behavior since the less stable countries could go hey look at the US they do it so why can't we?
So does the fact that we are the good guys allow us to do that. I would have to say no.

Besides when a government decides it is ehtically permissable to remove foregin leaders who are a threat or disagreement to policy what is to stop them from deciding that it is ok to do the same domestically?

As for Robertson I don't think age has anythign to do with his behavior. He has been mental for as long as i can remember and is most definately caught up in his own vision of the world which may or may not have much in common with reality.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell achieved further notoriety in 2001 by their assertion to a grieving nation that the September 11 terrorist attacks constituted divine retribution provoked by what they saw as rampant sexual immorality.

Well, R, I never specified the political or military aspects of assassination. I also never said that I was "comfortable" with it. I do agree that it is more acceptable as a part of a legitimate military action.

anonfan: Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell achieved further notoriety in 2001 by their assertion to a grieving nation that the September 11 terrorist attacks constituted divine retribution provoked by what they saw as rampant sexual immorality.
Luigi Novi: Yeah. Those of their parents.

Ahh ok. I thought that is what you might have meant but wanted to be sure.

But yeah politically assassination is a door that should be left alone. There already is, no doubt, too much temptation to use or abuse the powers already available to a world leader. So one who does not have the public or other governmental oversight somehow checking and balancing that temptation might be willing to give in a lot easier.

Ah yes soundbite pat and jerry the wondertwins of blaming american's problems on being too free.

Some thoughts came to mind when I was watching scenes of the devastation left by the hurricane down south. In 1998, Pat Robertson "prayed" on air that a hurricane would hit Orlando, Florida because DisneyWorld held a 'Gay Day'. All I can say is, "What kind of an immoral person would wish this on any human being?" An Evangelical Republican, of course. As documented by PBS's Frontline, the Bush/Karl Rove slime machine has shamelessly pandered to the Evangelical vote with blatant homophobia. Many have observed that the racism practiced by Republicans in the 60's ( RNC chairman Ken Melman recently apologised to the NAACP for the Republican Party practicing racist tactics) has been replaced by homophobia today. Pat Robertson, former Republican Presidential canidate and Evangelical vote organizer, is a superb example of the hate-spewing men the Republicans court and use to get out the "Evangelical Vote".

As far as I'm concerned, Robertson deserves no respect from me. I don't see him as a man of God. He's a disgusting man of Hate. Let's appreciate some real compassionate Christian men such as Jimmy Carter.

NEWS: Pat Robertson is claiming that the stroke suffered by Israel's President Sharon is "the wrath of God"

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1140438

Hang it up, Pat.

Why is God angry with a religious right-winger?

Because he (Sharon) did something that G-d's Obviously Chosen Spokesman™ (aka Pat Robertson) didn't like.

Ok. SO what did sharon do that sideshow pat not like? I pretty much didnt think sharon did much really bad. Ok he let the palenstinians have some of their land back. And he was working on peace deals with the palestinians, but what else was there?

Two Scriptures come to mind here:

ISAIAH 10:1

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed"


AND

Jeremiah 29:8-10

"For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.

For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD."

In other words: Woe unto them that saith "Thus saith the Lord" and the Lord did not say it.

Even the conservative pundit Mr. Pinkerton on FOX's Newswatch thinks Robertson intentionally says outrageous things just to keep himself in the news. It seems to be the case. Robertson just keeps doing it again and again.

This past weekend, I heard on 'The Michael Reagan Show' that Pat Robertson is OK as long as he's taking his medication, but when they try to take him off his medication, he gets crazy. So there you have it: Not a Taliban with a mullah issuing fatwahs, just an old man who's not on medication all the time.

Then he must not be taking his meds very often. Like everytime something bad happens in the world. Y'know, like Hurricane Katrina, Sharon's recent illness, etc.

That excuse just sounds like either the punchline to a joke or spin control to me.

So every ranting fundie (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) preacher suffers from paranoia/schizophrenia/... and just needs to take his meds to stop?

Maybe we should distribute anti-paranoia-drugs to them free of charge...

Robertson taking meds. Yeah right. That definately sounds like osme kind of spin control or joke.

But I like the idea of keeping him definately medicated, someone should take robertson and give him the selfhugging coat.

It's not like he's Tom Cruise or anything

Now he apologizes...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10825240/

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

Hey, Mr. Robertson, to avoid such embarrassing moments in the future, keep your opinions to yourself and keep your yap shut!

And take yer meds!

Benn, that's a very glib thing to say...according to Tom Cruise.

Feh...Tom Cruise is an idiot for losing Nicole Kidman.

He just needs to come out of the closet.

The newest issue of GQ magazine features their annual Dubious Achievements of the year feature, and Robertson got an entire sidebar filled with several of his comments from the past year. Included are his statement about assassinating Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and his subsequent apology, for which he claimed he did not actually say "assassination" (despite the direct quote), but "take out," which Robertson claims, could mean anything, including "kidnapping."

Given instances like this, you'd think he'd at least think about how offensive such statements would sound before he said them. How many times does he have to shoot his mouth off like this before he resolves to at least put things a bit more diplomatically?

Robertson's medication should include CRAZY GLUE...for his mouth!

I like James Randi's words for Robertson.

Apparenty, there's no "off" position on Robertson's stupidity switch. He makes offensive, unChristian opinions on his show since he's got final say on what's allowed on it so he feels totally within his rights to say it, no matter how stupid or wrong it is, and then he'll maybe later insincerely apologize for it. All this is of course for show, no doubt to make himself seem like the victim somehow and to save face with his blind followers who'll stand by anything he says and fully believe it, and there's nothing anyone else can say to dissuade them, either. Some people just can't deal with reality, I guess.

Anyway, if he was really sorry for any of the things he says then he never would've said them in the first place, so any apologies of his are total BS. He completely believes what he says, therefore he tries to pass it off as the truth, though the irony for him is that again what he espouses is total BS, and that's only compounded by his diehard followers.

Doesn't Robertson also sell some sort of diet bars?

Yeah...."Christ Crispies"


Goes good with non-alcoholic wine.

But it's even better with Jesus Juice!

Luigi - It seems to me that the guy who wrote that site is every bit as hateful as Pat Robertson, and probably much more hateful.

Constanze - I don't know about 'every ranting fundie', I just heard this about ONE INDIVIDUAL.

And before we condemn Pat Robertson completely, I suggest doing some research into something called 'Operation Blessing'.

Kind of reminds me of what Michael Moore said about Bill O'Reilly, "He's a jerk. But jerks can have good points too." Pat Robertson is a wacko who has good points.

MikeB: Luigi - It seems to me that the guy who wrote that site is every bit as hateful as Pat Robertson, and probably much more hateful.
Luigi Novi: If you can point to statements by Randi that even close to the hatred spewed by Robertson, please do so.

MikeB, didn't Robertson take some money from Operation Blessing to fund his diamond mining operations in The Congo (sp)?

Well, the wikipedia article on Operation Blessing doesn't impress me at all. So Robertson is involved in some charity. That doesn't negate the hate he stirs up with his statements. I don't approve of Robber barons donating a bit of their wast amount of wealth to charitable institutions a redeeming quality, either.

If those people really cared, they would get active on the political level to change the roots and causes of poverty, instead of doling out relief.

E.g, encourage people in poorer countries to do responsible family planning (and no, that's not "abstinence", but education and condoms). But because that's against the fundie views (and forbidding sex makes a good tool to keep people in line), that won't happen.

To me, that charity is simply a fig leaf.

I don't know about 'every ranting fundie', I just heard this about ONE INDIVIDUAL.

But all fundies have similar points (and the foaming-at-the-mouth behaviour) of hate speeches and using fear/paranoia. So if Robertson's behaviour is excused because his rantings and paranaoia and self-centerdness are caused by illness, and can be cured by drugs, then every fundie who spews similar stuff should also be given drugs.

MikeC,

Kind of reminds me of what Michael Moore said about Bill O'Reilly, "He's a jerk. But jerks can have good points too." Pat Robertson is a wacko who has good points.

I disagree there. A person like Robertson denounces himself because of his personal values and the way in which he acts. Good points are made by rational people in a calm manner and backed up with facts.
Otherwise, every mass murderer also has good points, because he happens to be right in some areas.

I disagree. People are not stick figures that are "good" and "bad." Yes, there are some people like mass murderers and dictators that are clearly bad. But since arguably the worst thing that Robertson has done is say hateful or insensitive things, I don't think he's in the Hitler or Saddam range. Regardless of your feelings about the charity, it is an admirable enterprise, in my opinion.

Also, many evangelical Christians have gotten involved politically to address worldwide issues, such as the Jubilee Debt Campaign (endorsed by Pat Robertson) and movements to stop sex trafficking.

Yes Brian, Robertson back in the ninties diverted funds, personnel and equipment in support of a congo diamond mine that was associated with some very bad people.

Robertson has not personally done anythign other than say and command his followers to do god's work as told to him. Hitler also I am sure did not personally pull the triger on any jews either though. The commander who issues the fatwah is just as responsible for the actions of his followers as the followers are for taking those actions. So when Robertson says that gays should die or people should be converted by force if need be because god told him to say that and someone actually goes out and does that then it is just as much Robertson's fault as joe bob dumbut.

And yes a lot of evangelicals have gotton involved politically but unfortunately they also bring along the same BS baggage of homophobia and destruction of science and all that the christian taliban pushes as a price for their political action and help.

As for the rest of Operation Blessing it doesnt seem like it ,on its own, is any better or worse than many other christian or other religious based charities. But doesnt the bible say somethign along the lines of give a man a fish and you feed him teach him to fish...... Thats what the world needs more of. Not just a hand out but a hand up. Giving people options on how to best life their life to the best of their abilities including abstinence, condoms, or other methods in family planning, farming techniques that will not destroy the land cleanliness cooking all the thigns that need to be done to promote healthy and successful living.

And I think one of the reasons Randi is deemed so hateful is that he exposes the lies of intelligent design and the christian taliban so of course he must be the enemy....Personally I think he deserves the medal of honor for being such a defender of intelligence and reason.

And yeah a lot of bad peopel have done or do nice things and a lot of good people do and say a lot of bad things. People are very complex but they can shoe horn themselves into a corner by their actions leanign one way or another. Robertson has and does too many bad thigns to have just a few good things outweigh the bad. And just how much of osma bin robertson's personal money and time do you think he really contributes to the charities that have his name attached? Probably not as much as people would like to think.

Even drug dealers and mobsters have given away money to charity. When you have that much money, giving lots to charity is not only easy, but it helps your image, and can help give you a folk-hero perception among some people (though not me).

Thus, pointing out that someone did charity is neither suprising nor relevant to the issue of the questionable things Robertson has said and done.

Luigi - Mr. Randi's overall tone seems to me to be of the foaming-at-the-mouth variety. I continued reading through his comments on the recent coal mine tragedy and the W.V. Governor's wife, which end with, "When is the religious population of this Earth going to start figuring out that they haven't got invisible friends living in the sky or under the ground who do these things?

Let's grow up, shall we?"
THEN he goes on to dump on the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, with "Sir Arthur's Dumb Question". I, for one, feel that Mr. Randi doesn't have much of a heart himself, to spew such vitriol on all and sundry. But then again, that's just my opinion.
Brian F. - I haven't heard anything about the Congo diamond mining operation.
Constanze - 'responsible family planning' INCLUDES abstinence AND education AND, MAYBE, condoms. The anti-abstinence people say, "We all know that they're all going to do it anyway, so let's not educate them as to why they shouldn't". A realistic person will say, "Sure, they'll all THINK ABOUT doing it, but at least a few of them won't (I didn't!), and MOST of them MAY OR MAY NOT do it, DEPENDING ON what we tell them and how we tell them".

"The commander who issues the fatwah is just as responsible for the actions of his followers as the followers are for taking those actions. So when Robertson says that gays should die or people should be converted by force if need be because god told him to say that and someone actually goes out and does that then it is just as much Robertson's fault as joe bob dumbut."

When did Robertson say that gays should die?

"And yes a lot of evangelicals have gotton involved politically but unfortunately they also bring along the same BS baggage of homophobia and destruction of science and all that the christian taliban pushes as a price for their political action and help."

Completely disagree with this. Many Christian groups (Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse) provide completely charitable resources without said "price."

"But doesnt the bible say somethign along the lines of give a man a fish and you feed him teach him to fish"

Do you have a verse for this?

"And just how much of osma bin robertson's personal money and time do you think he really contributes to the charities that have his name attached?"

I don't know. I bet you don't either. Since he founded said charity, I would wager he spent quite a bit of money on it at one point in time.

I agree, Luigi, that a lot of questionable people contribute to charity, etc. My point is not that "The charity makes Pat Robertson a good person" but "The charity is a good point of Pat Robertson."

The anti-abstinence people say, "We all know that they're all going to do it anyway, so let's not educate them as to why they shouldn't".

WHo exactly are the "anti-abstinence" people, since most family planning does start with why abstinence is the only %100 way and than moves onto the rest.

MikeB

Regardless of your feelings about the charity, it is an admirable enterprise, in my opinion.

As Luigi has pointed out, charity is done easily when one has a large wealth, and is often done for PR purposes.

To put it another way: If the KuKluxKlan suddenly opened a charity (for widows and orphans of members, eg.), would that make them in any way good, or excuse their actions?

About Randi: yes, I find his tone about religion not impartial or neutral, and I think that's sad, because slinging sarcastic barbs doesn't help advance the view of neutral scientists looking objectivly at the evidence. Instead, he reinforces the stereotype of atheistic/agnostic, and therefore, christian-hating, skeptic/scientist.
Although I can understand that attitude (which doesn't mean I excuse it): for one, the battle between real science and erosion by ID and creationism is fierce in the US, and seeing science and logical thinking eroded because some people want to return to the thinking of the Middle Ages must be hard to bear.
Secondly, he mentions that he was raised with religious beliefs, so I guess he met the worst side, the bigoted, fundie side, and many people who are raised that way then turn away with bitterness and hate - because they were taught hate and fear.

I haven't heard anything about the Congo diamond mining operation.

Follow this link to the wikipedia article on the charity, they have further quotes, sources, etc.

"And yes a lot of evangelicals have gotton involved politically but unfortunately they also bring along the same BS baggage of homophobia and destruction of science and all that the christian taliban pushes as a price for their political action and help."

Completely disagree with this. Many Christian groups (Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse) provide completely charitable resources without said "price."

R didn't say "all Christian groups". He said "a lot of the evangelicals". Yes, there are some groups with christian roots, which have a sensible, practical approach to help the people without preaching to them about the Bible first.
There are other groups which are mostly interested in preaching, and not directly helping the people, or only helping them "how they should be", not how they really are.

"And just how much of osma bin robertson's personal money and time do you think he really contributes to the charities that have his name attached?"

I don't know. I bet you don't either. Since he founded said charity, I would wager he spent quite a bit of money on it at one point in time.

Since he appears a lot on TV, apparently, he has a lot of money and time left for these activities. Also, judging by his personality, I don't believe he put more then a morsel of his wealth and time into it. (It may still be a large sum in dollars.)

Constanze - 'responsible family planning' INCLUDES abstinence AND education AND, MAYBE, condoms. The anti-abstinence people say, "We all know that they're all going to do it anyway, so let's not educate them as to why they shouldn't". A realistic person will say, "Sure, they'll all THINK ABOUT doing it, but at least a few of them won't (I didn't!), and MOST of them MAY OR MAY NOT do it, DEPENDING ON what we tell them and how we tell them".

Like Brian, I wonder who the "anti-abstinence" people are. I guess you mean normal, responsible people teaching about responsible family planning. These people don't preach against abstinence, but I can understand that they might get irate when in countries like Africa, where a large portion of the population is infected with AIDS and other STDs, the fundies try to convince the locals to try abstinence. It takes only ONE lapse of abstinence to become infected; and if it's the husband, the whole family will be infected in turn, since abstinence doesn't leave room for condoms.

I don't know in what world you live in that you believe that Abstinence is applicable on a large scale for normal people. Maybe you should talk to people outside your church, or read some reports of the groups that try for long-term development, not food relief only, on their work in the slums.
BTW, about the effectivness of abstinence among Catholic Christians (which forbid both condoms and abortion and consider virginity, and by extension abstinence, better then sex): In countries where the majority of the population is Catholic - Italy, Spain, Poland, Ireland - the abortion rate is even higher then in secular or protestant countries. Why? Because it's considered a sin to have condoms and the pill and information about them freely available, and people are lectured on being abstinent. But because they can't cope all the time, they then comit the greater sin (and medical and emotional problems) of an abortion. Even the wifes and daughters of ministers/ priests/ televangelists have had abortions.

So if it doesn't work for devout, strictly raised Christians in civilised countries, how the heck do you expect it to work in the slums and favelas, where sex (next to alcohol and other drugs) is often the only way to somehow cope with the dismal life and situation?

R, BTW, the proverb about giving a man a fish, he'll be not hungry for one day, but teaching him to fish, he will never be hungry again, is from China, not from the Bible.

MikeB: Mr. Randi's overall tone seems to me to be of the foaming-at-the-mouth variety. I continued reading through his comments on the recent coal mine tragedy and the W.V. Governor's wife, which end with, "When is the religious population of this Earth going to start figuring out that they haven't got invisible friends living in the sky or under the ground who do these things?
Luigi Novi: I see nothing hateful in such comments, since Randi is a skeptic, and promotes skepticism and critical thinking in regards to such cultural mores. “Foaming at the mouth” would more accurately describe those he speaks of.

MikeB: THEN he goes on to dump on the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, with "Sir Arthur's Dumb Question". I, for one, feel that Mr. Randi doesn't have much of a heart himself, to spew such vitriol on all and sundry.
Luigi Novi: Of course he criticizes Doyle. Doyle was, while levelheaded in other areas, extremely credulous when it came to matters of the supernatural, and promoted all many of pseudoscientific ideas, even going so far as to the promote the Cottingley Faires, which were obvious fakes. Saying so isn’t vitriolic or hateful. It’s a reasonable observation.

Such an observation only requires a bit of healthy skepticism, and an understanding of the Scientific Method. Not hate or “vitriol,” much less a lack of a heart.

(More of Randi’s Commentaries on the Fairies can be found here.)

MikeB: I agree, Luigi, that a lot of questionable people contribute to charity, etc. My point is not that "The charity makes Pat Robertson a good person" but "The charity is a good point of Pat Robertson."
Luigi Novi: It is an irrelevant one. The charity to which Robertson has donated money does not excuse his questionable statements. Many other people have no doubt donated similar or larger sums who have not said such things.

constanze: About Randi: yes, I find his tone about religion not impartial or neutral, and I think that's sad, because slinging sarcastic barbs doesn't help advance the view of neutral scientists looking objectivly at the evidence. Instead, he reinforces the stereotype of atheistic/agnostic, and therefore, christian-hating, skeptic/scientist.
Luigi Novi: If theists can state that there are gods in the sky, then why can’t non-theists say that there are not? Why is stating a lack of a belief any more “hateful” than stating adherence to one?

Yes what Constanze said is what I meant. A lot of groups have gotton involved, a lot of groups are very political and should not be counted as religious organizations anymore, and there are a lot of religious organizations (christian and not) that are truely useful in wanting to help others without the baggage (And I am very happy for the salvation army stores as they are a major source of a large part of my wardrobe.)

As for the fishy proverb. I thought it was one of the parables or somethign because the preacher at church liked to quote it quite often and had a wall hanging with it on it in the great hall during his tenure there. The next preacher removed it when they redecorated. Either way though it is a good quote. Giving someone a fish takes care of their immediate needs/wants but teaching them to fish gives them the ability to be self sustaining and feel a sense of accomplishment about it.

As for how much of Robertson's personal money he contributes. I dont have exact figures. Though I get the impression that it isnt a great percentage of his normal income. Considering that for you or I what he probably throws away in a month is a good chunk of our yearly income he can give a lot more before he starts hurting.

I'm not sure who or what you are meaning by the anti-abstinence groups reference MIkeB. The teaching of only abstinence does not give much room for normal human nature. Look at the increase in teen oral sex as a "safe" supposedly alternative to penetrative sex. Since they arn't penetrating it isnt sex so they are still having fun and are staying abstinent is the logic they go by.

With actual fmaily/sexual education they would be able to understand that oral sex is still sex (regardless of what clinton says) and that any exchange of fluids can be hazardous. That sexual activity can be fun but requires a degree of maturity and responsibility. So Basically what I am saying is that sex ed should include all the options for thigns, all the consequences of irresponsible activity and abstinence should be one of those options included but alternatives included in case a person does drop off the wagon.

Ok as for the gays should die quote that probably is more in the lines of Phelps than Robertson. But I am researching to see if I got my wires crossed on that specific quote. It is getting difficult to keep track of which fundie is spewing what hate without a scorecard.

However Robertson has called homosexuals abominations, saying they are responsible for all the social ills of the world, that homosexuals supported hitler and are satanists. He has said that lesbians are against motherhood. And homosexuals want to destroy christians and christianity. Calling homosexuals self-absorbed hedonists.

So not many of his quotes are very complimentary or loving, uplifting or spiritually polite even towards homosexuals.

Just to clarify, both Luigi and Constanze quoted "MikeB," but it was actually me they quoted (MikeC).

Oh, so not being polite or loving is the same as advocating organized murder? By your logic, Michael Moore has advocated the murder of President Bush several times over.

I will respond more tomorrow, but to run with the KKK analogy, no that wouldn't make the KKK a good organization. Nowhere do I say that Pat Robertson is a good guy. I am saying his charity is a good thing; that is something to encourage, a good point. If the KKK ran a charity and it was an actual VALID charity, that would be good. The KKK wouldn't be good, but what I am going to do? Tell them to stop being charitable? I also didn't say it excused his actions. I am just saying it is a good aspect of Pat Robertson. No more, no less.

And yes, it is irrelevant to his comments.

Sorry about the misquotes.

Luigi Novi: If theists can state that there are gods in the sky, then why can’t non-theists say that there are not? Why is stating a lack of a belief any more “hateful” than stating adherence to one?

Luigi, I was talking about Randi's tone, not the content of his comments. I'm a skeptic, and interested in the scientific method. But I'm also a Christian, and thus I can understand why his tone upsets people who believe.

Just to clarify, both Luigi and Constanze quoted "MikeB," but it was actually me they quoted (MikeC).

Aaaakk. Sorry, I know that I have trouble keeping you two apart when quoting (although I can see that you are two different persons with different opinions).

Oh, so not being polite or loving is the same as advocating organized murder? By your logic, Michael Moore has advocated the murder of President Bush several times over.

No, not at all. But R gave examples of what Robertson has said, and calling homosexuals abominations, and blaming them for the ills of the world (like saying that Katrina is God's punishment for the sins of New Orleans) is hate-speech, and stirring up resentment, and can lead to gay-bashing.

...Nowhere do I say that Pat Robertson is a good guy. I am saying his charity is a good thing; that is something to encourage, a good point...

There are other charities out there that try to help people without converting them, that are interested in long-term help, that have responsible directors, not somebody who diverts funds, that are supported by cool-headed, rational, well-liked public persons.
If you give your money to those charities, you are supporting this agenda.
If, OTOH, you give your money to the charity chaired and claimed by Robertson, you are indirectly supporting his stance, the approach of the charity, their mis-handling of funds.

BTW, why does Robertson, an evangelical, have a diamond mine at all? Seems he so focused on reading the gay-bashing and sex-hating parts in the Bible that he's skipped the part about how rich people don't get into heaven. (And no, a diamond mine isn't a way to help the people in the developing countries. There are factories and enterprises in other lines of work started by good charities that have done a better job of helping people.)

Just because it's charity doesn't make it automatically good, even more so when there are better groups out there.

...The KKK wouldn't be good, but what I am going to do? Tell them to stop being charitable? ...

Not support them, because I think it would be better for the majority of the people if the KKK stopped existing than to have a charity as fig leaf.

...I am just saying it is a good aspect of Pat Robertson. No more, no less. ...

And I don't believe he does this for any other reason then PR, so I consider it self-serving and not a good aspect of him. (Since Hitler has already been brought up: Hitler liked dogs and was kind to little kids, too. I don't consider that a good aspect of him.)

When you say "tone," constanze, what your referring to? What in his statements embodies this tone? If you can't point to a specific statement, then on what basis does one discern a tone?

With tone, I mean the general way in which is he phrasing his (justified) criticism, which I perceive as being sarcastic instead of neutral. (I also pointed out that while I can understand that attitude, I don't find it okay and I think it hurts his cause, because it turns off some people, and leads others to dismiss him, because they perceive him to be a vitriol-spewing caricature rather then look at the arguments themselves.)

It would be difficult to pick out a specific statement. But surely, as regular poster on this board, you know how important tone of voice is on a medium like internet, where other clues aren't available, and thus, sarcastic or even harmless joking remarks can very easily be misunderstood as to their purpose, leading to inflamed tempers, and therefore, it's advisable (even if it's not always easy!) to speak low-key rather then say something that might be perceived as inflammatory?

Ok MIkeC as to the quotes and tone of Robertson's rhetoric. I will admit that I was wrong when i said he had directly and explicitly stated homosexuals should die. That is phelps. However Robertson has made many other vile and nasty commetns comparing homosexuals to satanists, nazis, etc... and has said that they deserve what they get. Which to my mind is if not condoning violence and actions against homosexuals is definately not the christian love and brotherly outreach that someone in his position should be having.

And if I wanted to call someone's "tone" in to question, I would do so by pointing to specific examples. When one makes that accusation, and doesn't back it up, it comes off to me as rhetorical. By this, I'm not trying to attack you or anything, because you've always been one of the most reasonable people here, and the last person I would accuse of rhetoric. But to me, such accusations carry with them the obligation of elaboration. When an exchange goes like this:

Accuser: "I accuse you of so-and-so!"
Accused: "Um, okay. Can you tell me where I did this?"
Accuser: "No."
Accused: "Uh, well, oookay. Whatever."

When someone doesn't do this, it has the appearance of trying to have it both ways, and may imply that one is conscience of not having a solid point. I tend not to take such arguments seriously if the originator can't back it up and illustrate it. Perhaps that's just my personal bias, or something. I intend no offense by this, though.

I also don't see the problem with sarcasm. Sarcasm is simply the employment of irony for the sake of hyperbole, humor, etc. Sure, it can be used in a cruel way, but it is not cruel in and of itself, and I don't see where it is used as such by Randi.

Randi enjoys confrontation as shown on his frequent Larry King appearances. Another recent King program also featured someone who is skeptical of psychics. Rabbi Boteach criticised psychic Sylvia Brown for encouraging belief in the supernatural. That's quite amazing. Atheists would say that RELIGION is the biggest promoter of the supernatural.

Well, a former visitor to this site once objected to the term "supernatural" being applied to God, because, as he argued, God can't exist outside the nature that he created, so perhaps others such as Boteach do not think of God as such either. (Just speculation, mind you.)

I guess the esoteric part - astrology, psychic and so on - is seen as different from "normal" (i.e. Christian and mainstream, established) religion because many people are dissatisfied with Christianty/established religion or atheists, but go for the esoteric business.

Yes, there are similar mechanisms at work in the gullible people who let themselves be fleeced, but there's also a truthful search for something else beyond normal life at the basis, and not everybody who believes in religion or is interested in esoterics is a moron gulled by con men; there are enough people who try to look past the charlatans and find out if anything really holds up to the eye of a skeptical, thinking person.

Luigi,

I looked again at Randi's remarks about Robertson

I see. This chap who created everything is touchy about the desert he’s chosen as the chosen territory of the chosen people? Gee, but it’s hard to figure out these basic facts of the world – but that’s why we have the wisdom of Pat to explain this stuff, of course. Robertson, a practiced name-dropper, assured his Club members that about a year ago he’d prayed with Sharon, whom he referred to as "a very tenderhearted man and a good friend." He said he was sad about Sharon’s stroke, but he pointed out that in the Bible, the prophet Joel had warned about doing anything to divide God’s land. In Robertson’s opinion, Sharon flew in God's face to appease the European Union, the United Nations and/or the USA.

and faith
While I’m on a God rant, following the recent mining disaster – see www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/010606netherlands.html#i13 – the wife of the governor of West Virginia appeared on the NBC-TV Today Show and reassured viewers that people in her state still believe in miracles, as her husband had stated before the fact of the miners' demise was reported. Ignoring the twelve deceased, she designated the survival of the thirteenth miner as evidence to prove that at least some “miracle” had occurred. What an illustration of the desperate need these people have for their mythology and let’s-pretend philosophy! Want a better example of what looks like a miracle, lady? Try watching a sunset, listening to Mozart, or holding a baby in your arms; those aren’t miracles, either, but they sure out-class what you accepted. Your “God” made the mine shaft fall in, “He” suffocated twelve miners, and then – just to be capricious – “He” let one live, yet you see no defect in “His” decision? “God” even decided to give the survivor some brain damage, maybe as a little joke. Hey, “He” sure is a fun guy, isn’t “He”?

Can I rightly accuse your God of all this? Yes, I can. You see, I looked him up on Google. He’s omniscient – that means he knows everything. He’s omnipotent – so he can do anything. He’s all-merciful, forgiving, and loving, too. He controls everything: remember that falling sparrow? Well, do you suppose – if you thought about it at all – that God decided to carry out the West Virginia disaster – as well as the recent disastrous tsunami, murderous earthquakes in Guatemala and Pakistan, and bombings in Iraq – just for fun? Your merciful, caring deity sent hundreds of thousands of innocent people, many of them children, to their deaths! During the Holocaust, he heard the prayers of other millions, yet he allowed the poison gas to be released. This is your God?

Now, I consider this tone to be sarcastic. Randi's also attacking what looks to a true believer like a straw man, that God makes everything happen. Many christians will believe in miracles (especially in response to prayer) as soemthing special that happens, but don't believe that God runs every aspect of the daily life. (I'm not saying whether that's true or not, but I think that by exaggerating and distorting, Randi's point is easier to dismiss for believers.)

Now, I just expect in a rational discussion where the facts and evidence are on your side that the facts should be presented in a calm, logical, neutral manner, without any personal attacks, or using rhethoric as a crutch.
Yes, this is different both from afternoon talk shows as well as political debattes (where rhetoric, esp. cutting satire, does have it's place, and talking calm means you loose when everybody else shouts above you and gets personal).

If Randi wants to only adress fellow skeptics and atheists, his sarcasm also has its place, because it will bring a shared chuckle at the stupid other people.

But since Randi posts on the web, I presume that his intent is to educate people about frauds to prepare them against being fleeced by con men. If that's his aim, his tone of sarcasm, and what feels like biting condenscenion and superiorty towards sometimes sincere, but uneducated people in the details of physics, will alienate and turn off a lot of those people he wants to help, and his readers will be only fellow skeptics who don't need anymore convincing.

If my presumption is wrong - that he's writing a rant on purpose or similar, that the audience he aims for is not the one I thought - my point is moot.

Just because theists do not categorize their beliefs with other topics like alien abduction, homeopathy, chiropractic, psychic abilities, feng shui, ghosts, etc., doesn’t change the fact that they just as pseudoscientific.

As far as Randi’s comments about God, it isn't a Straw Man, because many people do believe that God causes bad things to happen.

You can have a rational discussion even if you express yourself with doses of sarcasm, which in my opinion, is a legitimate creative decision, and certainly appropriate for scumbags like Pat Roberston. It's his site, and reason backs up his viewpoint, and he is obviously angered by the irrationality and/or questionable morality inherent to certain religious beliefs or statements. So long as the strength of his arguments lies in the reasoning or evidence he employs, I see nothing wrong with using sarcasm at times, which used only to punctuate his writings, and is not the representative basis of them. He is a human being, after all, and he has every right to be as passionate in stating his viewpoints as others do with theirs.

All human beings are prone to certain moods, and I have read much of Randi's work, not only all of his Commentaries, but two of his books, and what I have found in them is that his tone is overwhelmingly dispassionate, objective, and factual. If a rhetorical or caustic tone is sprinkled here and there for expressive effect, it is only because he is legitimately angered by the adverse effects that belief in pseudoscientific ideas has on our world, and it is only after he has illustrated his viewpoint with empirical methods.

I don’t see this “superiority,” but rather a reaction to superiority by his opponents. Theists, after all, far outnumber non-theists, and it is the non-theists who have to contend with hatred from theists. Randi was once asked by a theist something to the effect of how he could be a moral person without a belief in God. This is the sort of hatred that atheists and Randi and agnostics like myself are subjected to by public figures like former President George H.W. Bush or visitors here like Zarm Rkeeg, and understandably, Randi responded angrily. Nonetheless, he later apologized to that person in his Weekly Commentary, which I thought was pretty generous of him, given the implicit insult in such questions. All in all, I think Randi is respectable, and presents his viewpoints in that manner.

But if you have issues with some of the things he says, then I would suggest that you read more of his material to get a more accurate view of him (An archive of all of his Weekly Commentaries is on his site, and I highly recommend Flim Flam! and The Truth About Uri Geller, just two of his many books), and/or email him at randi@randi.org. Just make sure you state your case clearly and point to specific examples. Who knows, his answers may surprise you.

To back up a couple of things Luigi said: I personally believe that since according to the christian belief that their god created everything he also created and is responsible for evil totally and absolutely. One of the reasons why I stopped believing.

Also, like I've mentioned before I've been told that I cannot be a good person since I dont have religion or believe in god. That without religion there is nothign keeping me from being a rapist or thief or otherwise bad person. (the exfriend and girlfriend both have said that about me to me and others)

I've watched randi since his days on the carson show and have checked on his works every now and again over the years. If he gets a bit emotional in his writings it can be understood especially considering the enemies he is fighting and how emotionally insulting they can be.

Luigi,

Just because theists do not categorize their beliefs with other topics like alien abduction, homeopathy, chiropractic, psychic abilities, feng shui, ghosts, etc., doesn’t change the fact that they just as pseudoscientific.

From your point of view outside the topic, yes, both/all of that stuff is unscientific, and therefore, all belongs into the same bin. But I tried to explain why to the people who believe it's possible to believe in one area but not the other. What skeptics think about esoteric doesn't interest the believers anymore than what the atheists think interests the theists.

As far as Randi’s comments about God, it isn't a Straw Man, because many people do believe that God causes bad things to happen.

Wow. I didn't know that serious people - aside from Robertson and the like - believed that still today.

It's his site, and reason backs up his viewpoint, and he is obviously angered by the irrationality and/or questionable morality inherent to certain religious beliefs or statements. So long as the strength of his arguments lies in the reasoning or evidence he employs, I see nothing wrong with using sarcasm at times, which used only to punctuate his writings, and is not the representative basis of them. He is a human being, after all, and he has every right to be as passionate in stating his viewpoints as others do with theirs.

I feel very lucky that I'm so far removed over here from that hateful, passionate debate (or rather, fighting) between fundies and scientists, that I'm troubled by the understandable reaction and want a calm discussion. But if everybody else in this fight is frothing at the mouth about his view point, it takes an exceptional strength not to get angry in return. (and the developments in some areas are quite worrisome.)

All human beings are prone to certain moods, and I have read much of Randi's work, not only all of his Commentaries, but two of his books, and what I have found in them is that his tone is overwhelmingly dispassionate, objective, and factual....

I haven't had a chance to read his books yet (the old story - most US-books aren't available at the library, and even buying over amazon, the shipping comes expensive, so I consider some time before buying.)

I don’t see this “superiority,” but rather a reaction to superiority by his opponents. Theists, after all, far outnumber non-theists, and it is the non-theists who have to contend with hatred from theists. ...

Again, I guess this is because I come from a different viewpoint and atmosphere, where Christians/theists aren't automatically assumed to have checked their brains at their church door and stepped into the Middle Ages, because the Christians don't assume automatically that every non-believer/atheist is a bad person, or that every scientist is godless.
Rather, what people believe is their private business, and people are generally expected to think rationally and logically and scientifically regardless of their faith. (That doesn't prevent one from numerous disappointments when discovering that the large majority of people are simply morons, regardless of faith.)

Randi was once asked by a theist something to the effect of how he could be a moral person without a belief in God.

I can't fathom any normal serious person (besides fundies, who are some bricks short of a church anyway) saying something like that.

But if you have issues with some of the things he says, then I would suggest that you read more of his material to get a more accurate view of him (An archive of all of his Weekly Commentaries is on his site, and I highly recommend Flim Flam! and The Truth About Uri Geller, just two of his many books), and/or email him at randi@randi.org. Just make sure you state your case clearly and point to specific examples. Who knows, his answers may surprise you.

Yes, I have been considering mailing to him, when I find the time to thoroughly compose the letter, because I disagree with some of his views.

I also don't quite understand (but again, this may be a different perspective due to a different society) why he seems to categorize everybody who believes in anything esoteric - even acupuncture or homeopathy - as gullible, non-scientific person or mocks countries who accept these methods of treatment, as if there aren't results that these treatments have ("he who heals is right" is a motto I like, as long as safeguards are used, which is done over here), or as if there aren't people who seriously, logically and scientifically approach and research these phenomena.

To clarify: As a Christian who believes in the power of God, then I believe God allows bad things to happen and could in fact, cause, bad things to happen (as He did in the Bible). However, this should not be confused with the simplistic formula of "Do bad and get smited" sometimes preached by Pat Robertson.

Allowing bad things to happen because God lets the world (once created) run on its own mechanics is very different than activly causing bad things to happen (like in Hiob, as answer to the attorney's challenge).

Even then, aren't a lot of bad things quite easily explained and not miracles (if "Miracles" sth. supernatural, unexplained. If "Miracles" means unusual incidence, against chance, then a lot of things are miracles.) E.g. the explosion in the mine (where the governor's wife mentioned above commented on) was probably a gas explosion or similar. And people do bad things all the time, I don't need to see devils and demons tempting them constantly.

Agree, but I'm not going to deny that God CANNOT cause bad things to happen.

Isn't that the Prophet Jeremiah's thesis in the books he traditionally wrote? The fortunes of Israel are directly tied in to their ability to follow the Law of God. While I think that's the wrong lesson to take, it's hardly unique to Pat.

(The lession I take? Your life is short, uncertian and fragile, repent and come to God now while you are still able to do so.)

constanze: From your point of view outside the topic, yes, both/all of that stuff is unscientific, and therefore, all belongs into the same bin. But I tried to explain why to the people who believe it's possible to believe in one area but not the other. What skeptics think about esoteric doesn't interest the believers anymore than what the atheists think interests the theists.
Luigi Novi: The issue is one of categorization and definition, not interest. Whether this “interests” theists or not does not change the fact that belief in spirits of any kind is non-scientific, and when its adherents attempt to claim, explicitly or implicitly, that it is not (or that it is “factual”), then it becomes pseudoscience. This is predicated on the definition of pseudoscience. Not one’s point of view.

constanze: Wow. I didn't know that serious people - aside from Robertson and the like - believed that still today.
Luigi Novi: Unfortunately, many do. This is in marked contrast from theists who do not use the language of empiricism or science to explain their religious beliefs, or who do not, for example, read the Bible literally. One example of this is noted skeptic and mathematician Martin Gardner, who claims to be a fideist. That is, his take on his religious beliefs is credo cosolans—he believes because it comforts him. He does not argue the Bible literally, or nor does he argue his religious beliefs with the intent of proving them as empirical. For him, it is a matter of faith.

As for the different viewpoints held by theists and non-theists in your neck of the woods, I envy you.

constanze: I haven't had a chance to read his books yet (the old story - most US-books aren't available at the library, and even buying over amazon, the shipping comes expensive, so I consider some time before buying.)
Luigi Novi: I understand. I also recommend Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe in Weird Things, and Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World. Those two books blew me away. The former, which is written by the founder of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society, was the first book that set me on the road to critical thinking, skepticism, and the Scientific Method. The latter, by Carl Sagan, was on the same topics, and so beautifully written that I never perceived it to be redundant to have read both of them.

Until then, there’s LOADS of material in his Weekly Commentary archive. (Warning: Shameless Plug: You can read the two texts pieces I myself contributed to them by inputing my name in the site’s search engine, and you can see the two pieces of artwork I made for him here and here.)

constanze: I also don't quite understand (but again, this may be a different perspective due to a different society) why he seems to categorize everybody who believes in anything esoteric - even acupuncture or homeopathy - as gullible, non-scientific person or mocks countries who accept these methods of treatment, as if there aren't results that these treatments have ("he who heals is right" is a motto I like, as long as safeguards are used, which is done over here), or as if there aren't people who seriously, logically and scientifically approach and research these phenomena.
Luigi Novi: Let me respond to three different points that I see in this passage:

First, he does not categorize anyone who believes in anything esoteric as gullible. The issue is not whether the ideas in question are esoteric, but whether they are pseudoscientific, and the manner in which he classifies the people depends on who they are: Are they the shameless fake psychics who claim to be “talk to the dead”? If so, then he is utterly merciless towards them, not only because they are dishonest frauds, but because they prey on innocent and vulnerable people dealing with a painful time in life. He does not, on the other hand, attack such victims. Does he criticize people in general who promote such ideas, including those who merely believe in them? Yes. But not generally in the manner you describe. Yes, some are gullible. Some are ignorant. But it is difficult to speak about such things without in some way sounding like you’re insulting the people who believe in such things. Randi’s responses will obviously be stronger towards people who promote these things in a manner that is calculated, dishonest, inconsistent, etc. For my part, I can say that I do not look down on such people, for I myself used to be far more credulous in matters like UFOs, psychics, etc., until I read Why People Believe Weird Things. I don’t know if I was “gullible” prior to that, but I was certainly ignorant of the Scientific Method, the Peer Review Process, and how these are the best methods we have to test empirical claims.

Second, he criticizes all people in all countries who promote such things, who waste money on such things, and who live their lives and try to run their countries based on such ideas, including the United States. That does not mean that he is criticizing the countries themselves, or the criticizing the people living in those countries in a manner or context that is racist or nationalistic. He criticizes the United States for this, and even became a U.S. citizen because he didn’t feel his country of origin, Canada, was sufficiently free. Thus, he is consistent, and shows neither favoritism towards his own country, nor any particularly denigration towards others. He has stated that the superstitions and pseudoscientific ideas promoted in different countries are the same, and that only the “flavors” are different.

In any case, there is no way that anything Randi has said comes anywhere near being "every bit as hateful as Pat Robertson."

Lastly, the fact that people who promote these ideas are “serious” is precisely the problem. But their arguments are most certainly not “logical,” and they do not approach them “scientifically.” Randi has shown this time and time again. Yes, many promoters of such ideas claim to be scientific in their approach, but that doesn’t mean that they are. For example, a couple of researchers, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, subjected Uri Geller to a number of tests at Stanford in the 70’s. But Randi showed in The Truth About Uri Geller that these experiments did not observe proper controls, like double blind controls, that the integrity of the experiments were constantly being compromised, etc. Thus the “results” you mention are completely unreliable. There is absolutely no evidence that homeopathy works, that psychic powers exist, that chiropractic is legitimate, etc. There have been actual scientific tests have conducted on these ideas that did utilize proper controls, and guess what? They showed zero positive results, unless by “results,” you were referring to the placebo effect.

Pat Robertson predicts Terror late in 2007

All I can say is he better be right, else he's gonna look like a fool..

well more of a fool...

In any case, its one thing to predict, its another to say God told me so. Suffice to say, if it doesn't happen, then was God wrong?

Question, if Pat Robertson predicted that americans would die on a specific date, and that there was some attack on that date. Could he be sued?

...or possibly arrested for being an accesory to murder?

Why? Unless he committed the murder himself, I fail to see how he could be legally responsible.

His school boasts 150 alumni working for W.

Oh my god. You're not going to believe this.

I mean, seriously, he's gone off the deep end.

Now Robertson is saying---get this--something sensible!!!

Maybe he smoked some and changed his mind

CNN.com's article on this subject has someone speculating that Robertson smelled some of the sweet leaf being smoked by his grandkids. Grandpa can't have his grandchildren going to jail over that, now can he?

Pat Robertson, now 87, suffered a stroke on Friday, February 2. He was treated with medication and released to home, I think today.

Because of marriage equality?

Is this clown still spouting his propaganda?

Not any more, Tim. Pat Robertson passed away today; he was 93. More here.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Hope he enjoys the Other Place.

I wonder if this means that The 700 Club will finally be scrapped. The network that it's on has been trying to get rid of it for ages, but Pat's contract was iron clad. At one point, they did try to buy him out, but his asking price was more than they were willing to pay. So they just had to grin and bear it.

I'm actually sad about that. He was entertaining.

As far as I know, the contract is ironclad. Whoever owns The Family Channel must carry The 700 Club. In perpetuity. Robertson's CBN sold the Family Channel to Fox. Who subsequently sold it to Disney. Both of them have been stuck with airing The 700 Club; Freeform, the current name of The Family Channel, runs it three times daily on weekdays.

So even though Robertson is now safely in the ground, the poor channel is forever stuck with his demon spawn.

I'd trash the show and then take the hit in litigation. On the other hand, it's probably quite profitable, so I guess they can hold their noses while going to the bank.

They air it at odd hours and slap disclaimers all around it.

I get the feeling that they would love to be rid of it, if it wouldn't cost so much.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4yUqkMENYGE

Right.