Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Register
User login
Poll
Recent comments
- Anonymous (not verified)
- WResonance (not verified)
- Eddie (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- RobbL
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
- We swear, we had NOTHING to do with this...
- Alexander Aan: 'God Does Not Exist'
- 'Should Californians be allowed to register and vote on election day?'
- 'Mad Men' and the infantilization of America
- D-Day
- Earl Scruggs Was The Coolest Man Ever
- Remember, Remember...
- Five Perfect Collections of Outtakes
- Jerry Brown for President
- Turns Out, Californians May Not Be the Craziest Voters in America
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 18 guests online.
Navigation
Credits, etc.
Monkey logos by Katherine Roe
(who had no part in the color design)
Hosting graciously provided by Oliver Fross.
People, did you NOT get our memo about Pat Robertson?
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 23:44 — Ben
Pat Robertson, televangelist and erstwhile presidential candidate, said something stupid yesterday about the earthquake in Haiti. The press, being lazy and addicted to cheap controversy much the way Joel Mathis is addicted to cheap vodka, breathlessly reported what Robertson said. Then a million pundits and bloggers poured forth with righteous indignation as pundits and bloggers are wont to do.
No, I'm not going to link to any of it. And neither should you.
Let the record show that Infinite Monkeys imposed a media blackout on Pat Robertson before anyone heard of Satan's Caribbean holiday, demonic Halloween candy, or other such rot. You can only do so many Pat-Robertson-is-an-idiot-so-please-shut-up posts before they start to fall flat.
I'm violating our four-year-old ban to remind people of it, and to encourage others to adopt the same policy. Instead of condemning Pat Robertson -- whose influence extends no further than the TV screens of a few hundred thousand dowagers and shut-ins in a vibrant country of 350 million people -- we should be ignoring him.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7031
- Ben's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
I could not possibly, under any circumstances...
...agree more.
I even censored his name from the one comment I made about it on Twitter, which was pretty much what you just said, condensed. Every time I see another person going off about him I think "For how happy you just made him, you might as well have sent him money." All he wants is his name in the news again to get those dollars of hatred pouring into his dusty coffers.
Paying Attn to Pat Robertson's Declarations on Nature is Like
... paying attn to Richard Dawkins on religion. On those respective subjects, both should be ignored and told to play the Quiet Game ("Let's see who can be quietest the longest!") ;o/
Pat Robertson vs. Richard Dawkins
That's hardly a fair comparison. One is a lunatic and one is a scientist. You may not agree with Dawkins take on religion, but at least he is approaching it in an intellectually honest way (at least compared with Robertson). Dawkins' opinions are based on observation and fact; Robertson's are based on the voices in his Book and head.
Dawkins' arguments on God's existence are
... not to put too fine a point on it, (from the viewpoint of anyone educated in religious education) sophomoric, and "intellectually honest" only if he is incapable of a level of reasoning above "Can God make a rock so big that He Himself cannot lift it?"
Since I think that he *is* capable of finer reasoning, I accuse him, sir, of intellectual dishonesty or, at best, laziness.
This does not make him anything less than a fine scientist, and a pretty good writer.
Robertson, in contrast, is no scientist and has displayed increasingly (which some thought not possible) erratic and alarming theological statements.
I do not think of him as a fine theologian.
I was making a comic, hyperbolic and jarring compare/contrast.
But the main thrust -- that I wish they would both shut up and stick to their "areas of expertise," if they have no interest in bettering their understanding -- I will let stand.
It is just my own opinion.
If I had to pick one or the other to have dinner with, I would pick Dawkins.
Sophie's Choice
If I had to pick one or the other to have dinner with, I would pick Dawkins.
If I had to pick, I'd go hungry.
[/hyperbole]
Make that "Sophomore's Choice" And
... I'll pick up the tab!
.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009
It's like Madonna
Madonna simply does stuff to shock us for the sake of shocking us - and getting us to talk about her.
Ignore her ... and she'll stop that behavior.
Same with Robertson. I wonder how many press outlets linked him to the GOP or asked conservatives to denounce his comments...
you should have stuck to you ban
... or maybe done some research first. You can argue the wisdom or general societal political correctness of what Robertson said, but not the historical facts. He has a right to believe what he believes, and a 1st amendment right to say it.
Do I think it was proper? Under these circumstances, no.
Re: you should have stuck to your ban
Okay, John, I'm game.
To what "historical facts" are you referring? Because the "historical fact" of the Haitians inking a treaty with Beelzebub to throw off the hated French is not one generally accepted by most historians, so far as I am aware.
Or do you mean the historical fact of Robertson's role in shaping the conservative movement and the religious right in the 1970s and '80s? You will certainly get no argument from me about that. But that day is long since passed. Robertson's influence now, such as it is, is more irritating than anything else. My shot at his audience was perhaps mean, but accurate. If demographics is destiny, then Robertson is leading his flock straight to the cemetery.
I could use the clarification, because without it, I fail to see how you draw the link from my need to do "some research first" to Robertson's "right to believe what he believes, and a 1st amendment right to say it." Well, of course he does. So what? My point is simply that Pat Robertson should be free to peddle his nonsense to his diminishing audience and that everyone else -- that is to say, the vast majority of the country -- would do well to go about their daily lives blissfully unaware that the man is still yammering on cable. If anything, my critique is aimed more at the press, which loves to use kooky statements from hucksters like Robertson to play gotcha games with mainstream conservative actors.
In short: They still cover him like it's 1988. It isn't.
And now I've said far more about this subject than I wanted to. Thanks.
I follow the local capital reporter for NPR on Twitter
And, being a lefty (though I repeat myself), she had to blast something out about Robertson within minutes of the initial reports. I was tempted to chide her for wasting tweetspace on the guy, but figured doing so would only feed the troll.
Lefties
"And, being a lefty (though I repeat myself), she had to blast something out"
Yeah, because that's what all Lefties do.
I understood
the spirit (if you will) of the case at hand here. Politically, I do not disagree with you. Yes, the expected blasts were sure to follow - which would tend to besmirch all believers - except certain ones. They do lay in waiting. Wow, all over the place in no time at all. Luckily there is a whole lot of other noise going on.
As a friend of mine said wisely said:
"If I was selling Christianity (more irony, it's free) I would have thought the message should have been. "... an opportunity to show the love of Christ by helping people in Haiti." Then went on to quote scripture, lead a prayer or other such ritual."
=== but, anyway, here is one version of what I read:
" On 14 August 1997, God’s people in Haiti experienced a historic victory over Satan, a milestone in winning our country back for God. The reason lies in history. The slaves brought here from Africa have suffered incredibly for many years. On 14 August 1791, a slave leader by the name of Boukman called a secret meeting in a wood called Bois-Caiman near Cap Haitien, which was attended by a large number of slaves. They celebrated a satanic ceremony, sacrificing a pig and drinking its blood, swore to serve the Devil and dedicated Haiti to him. For 206 years, Bois-Caiman was a very holy place, a high place which could only be entered by witch doctors during Voodoo ceremonies. For 206 years, they have been meeting there every August 14 to sacrifice to Satan.
A number of Christian leaders, including Paul and Gerald Clerie of Vision: Haiti and Christian leaders among the large numbers of Haitians in the USA, Canada, France and other countries, called Christians to unite on 14 August 1997 to pray and fast that Haiti would return to God. In Haiti’s towns, villages and mountains, Christians came together to fast and pray, held victory marches in the streets and a large event in the capital from 6am to 10pm during the holy invasion.
Our church members started their march in front of the President’s palace and marched for 6 hours to the place where the satanic ceremony took place 206 years ago. We had informed the government and media of our intentions weeks before the event, and were told that the witch doctors would be there, as they were every year. When we arrived, they had hidden themselves, unable to directly confront the Christians. It was a significant spiritual battle to reach the tree under which the pig was sacrificed in the original ceremony. We formed a Jericho march, circling the magic tree seven times. On the seventh time around, God gave many people a vision of the Devil fleeing from the area. The Christians were overjoyed. We cancelled the satanic contract and broke the curse, before celebrating communion and dedicating the area as a place of prayer. We also declared 14 August to be a national prayer day, on which people should pray that Haiti will return to God.
On the same day, several witch doctors were saved during the events in the capital. Three days after our holy invasion, the witch doctors returned to Bois-Caiman to bring their sacrifices and call on the spirits. After days of effort, nothing happened, because we had commanded the spirits never to return and dedicated the area to Christ.
The witch doctors complained to the government and media. At first, the government also protested, speaking in a press release of ‘terrible damage to a Voodoo holy place in which no Christian had set foot for 206 years.’ By the grace of God, the government relented and respected our legal right as Haitians to gather at any place on Haiti, including Bois-Caiman, where they now allow all Christian groups to meet. The place is now very popular, and local Christians gather there daily for prayer and fasting. All Haitians now know that the country no longer has a pact with the Devil; the contract has been canceled, the curse broken."
===
I understand why Robertson could hardly resist 'the temptation' to comment.
Anyway, now that you have had your "read my lips" or CSPAN moment ... I will say, sorry.
Boukman "Devil" Pact
What's your source?
According to wikipedia, Boukman was a Vodou (Voodoo) priest. As such, I don't think any ritual he presided over would have been associated with Satan. I get the feeling that the pig sacrifice was probably not even made to whatever the Vodou equivalent of Satan is (if there even is one) but I haven't looked too deeply in the matter. Still, I think it's more likely that the French and/or Christian missionaries told the history in their own words, to serve their own purposes.
Heh... hardly. But nice try. :)
khabalguy
"Read my lips" was responding to Ben where he said he had vowed never to comment on Robertson some years ago. It was a playful remark. Pong: nice try.
wikipedia, eh? What more do I need to know?
"Read My Lips"
Ah. I thought it was in reference to historians not agreeing that Haiti made a pact with the devil, since that is what the vast majority of your unsourced post was about. I mean, you go on at length, with a 100+ word quote about how Boukman made a pact with Satan and then say, "Ben, you've had your 'Read my lips' moment," all in response to him questioning the historical accuracy of said claim. What are we to infer?
That it references more than ten different sources regarding Boukman and/or the Haitian revolution. What was your source again?
This Just In: Pat Robertson, Meet...
... Mr. Danneeee Glover!
(hat tip: Big Hollywood)