Has Pat Robertson Completely Lost it?
 

Pat Robertson has been a 'mo foe for a long time. I'm pretty used to him blaming natural disasters on a particular region's "acceptance of homosexuality". But now I think he's just flat out lost his mind. He blames the recent Haiti earthquake on a pack Haitians made with the Devil in the 17 hundreds.

Seriously Pat? I realize this is a dumb question, but do you have any evidence for that claim?

I'm stunned by his ignorance. But I eagerly await the backlash he will, hopefully, receive.

Pat Robertson is the hemorrhoid on the sphincter on the butthole of the universe and exists because God didn't eat enough fiber and strained too much when he rested on the seventh day. Funk him.

He completely lost it a long time ago

I completely agree with this!

:D

While it is of course a stupid thing to believe and even more stupid to say out loud it is not some bit of nonsense original to him but rather a long-standing "theological urban legend" in certain quarters (here's a page from 2004 and there was an upsurge in such rumblings back in the early '90s when Bush/Clinton were dealing with the first Aristide ouster; we just didn't have YouTube).

I'm not at all surprised to learn that Robertson travels in those quarters.

What is surprising is people who think this is a good riposte (as I've now seen in several places: "So what he's saying is god has spent 200 years punishing people who simply live near where other people did a bad thing. Who would believe in such a god or hold to such a moral system?" I've been seeing that from Christians. Is not such an idea, in essence, the fundamental belief of Christianity (and plenty of other religions)? If original sin isn't crazy then god punishing Haitians because of misdeeds isn't particularly crazy either.

Yes, because finger pointing and being judgmental are so much more pleasing in the eyes of the Lord than compassion and understanding.

The OP makes the mistake of assuming PR "had it" to begin with. You cannot lose what you never had.

I'm not sure what that response means since I said nothing about gods views on people finger pointing and judging instead of being compassionate and understanding.

Pat Robertson showed plenty of compassion, immediately following what he said with calls to help, support, and aid the people of Haiti in any way we can. He did not say that the people currently living in Haiti were in responsible for their condition any more than he views me as being personally responsible for original sin even if, nonetheless, I live under its cloud.

My point is more that it is odd for people who believe in the same god as Robertson to say that this god would never behave in the way described when similar behavior is central to the beliefs of Christians (as well as Judaism and Islam).

ETA: It occurs to me that maybe you weren't responding to my post. If so, never mind.

I wasn't.

Yeah, he's always been a whack-job, but there are degrees of insanity....

I was preemptively

As I said on Twitter, Pat Robertson is an evil man. You'd think that someone circling the drain would be nicer to people so that he could get his wrinkled ass into heaven...

Danny Glover appears to be equally on the insane side.

Alas, Pat is certain they will be rolling out the red carpet for him.

I don't personally think there's a heaven or a hell - but people like Pat make me wish that there was at the very least some kind of "moment of total revelation" just after death. Y'know, some cosmic equivalent of receiving a grade, having the truth of your life revealed, just so people like Mr. Robertson can see how wrong they were before moving on to oblivion. (Pat's evil is too piddling to bother giving him an eternity of torment - okay, maybe a period of self-realizing torment equal to the number of years he appeared on TV. Give him complete enlightenment, then make him watch every broadcast he ever did. That'll do.)

My Dad sends Pat money. My Dad is a warm-hearted, generous and even brilliant guy. (He's a rocket scientist, literally.)but Pat makes sense to him. I bet he completely buys into the latest Patism, 'cause Dad sees demons everywhere. (If you get a headache, my Dad will lay his hands on your head and rebuke the demons of suffering in the name of Jesus. He's not boring, my Dad. I genuinely love him, but boy are we different.)He's fond of pointing out to me that if he's right (about the whole God thing), I will find out for myself when I die, whereas if I am right (about the whole atheism thing), then neither of us will know anything after we go. He's correct, of course. But the universe doesn't care.

I'd say Glover blaming the quake on global warming is incredibly silly, and certainly unscientific. At worst, it's a Hollywood celebrity trying to link everything to a pet cause. But the site you linked to called it obscene, and added without apparent justification that Glover was blaming white people. This is the kind of language that should tell you you are getting your news from highly biased, and intellectually vacuous, sources. (And yes, that brush goes both ways on the partisan media spectrum, I fully admit.) But, yes, Glover's assessment is worth a :rolleyes:

Edited to add - Oh, on second look , the "blaming white people" idea comes from one of the reader comments, not from the source. The source comments remain vapid, however, and link to a post about how Gaia-belief is worse than God-belief. Well, they are both irrational, that's for sure.

My point in posting that is stupid people will try to link any and everything to whatever suits their purpose. Robertson lost his mind? Absolutely.

I won't disagree. But Glover's brand of dumb seems less hurtful and twisted to me than Robertson's.

Well, I derailed in a way I didn't really mean to, and for that I apologize. My goal is not to draw comparisons as to which is worse, as I think Robertson is an idiot. I just wanted to show some of the idiocy out there coming from other directions in the name of their specific causes.

Stupid is inevitable. At least nearly all of the parties involved are actually helping out, though, including Robertson. (Apparently not Rush, though. I'm ready to stand corrected, but it sounds like he is taking the lowest of low roads.)

I think Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh should team up for a "Wrath of God" comedy tour.

I believe Limbaugh encouraged donations through the Red Cross rather than donations through the US government. What is being publicized is that he did say not to donate through the government.

Here's what Rush said: (And Ebert's open letter chastising him for saying it)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...NION/100119985

Right. He doesn't trust the government or Obama, and take that for what it is. However, he never said not to send money for Haitian relief.

I don't see how anyone with a straight face and clear conscience could interpret his comments as anything but extreme politicizing and utter douche-baggery. Ebert points out that Limbaugh has basically said that clicking the white house link will mean that your donation is actually being stolen by Obama for his own uses. That's demonstrably untrue, (they just have a link to the official Red Cross site) and a very heavy accusation. That, if true, would get any President tossed right out of office. Indeed, it would be a scandal to make Watergate seem like a hiccup.

Limbaugh also said that we citizens have already given to a Haiti fund, the US tax system. (Har har) This seems, on the face of it, to be discouraging anyone from donating. If anywhere he indicated that this was just a cheap political joke, and that his listeners should actually help out, that's fine. Has he done that?

I do see that Rush's home page now has a link to Haiti assistance efforts - according to liberal sources, he didn't have such a link up yesterday, though every other conservative pundit did. At the time I looked, there were no clarifying comments from Rush making him seem human. I hope i'm wrong about him. But really, his public face so far seems unapologetic, indifferent and proud of it.

I think conservative is a perfectly wonderful thing to be, and I don't demonize my conservative friends and family members. (I try my hardest to own up when liberals fall into d'baggery - though I don't consider myself to be staunchly liberal. I'm very middle-of-the-road in my own mind.) But really, is this guy (Rush) worth defending anymore? Isn't there a limit? As of my current understanding, I rate him Worse Than Pat.

Found this to be an interesting review of the history of Pat Robertson's statement (as I said earlier it wasn't just the spontaneous ravings of an old man speaking extemporaneously) within certain theological circles (which include some parts of Haiti as well.

Though I am still surprised when people express outrage that people who believe in a vengeful god and an omniscient/omnipotent god actually express the belief that events are god's plan. Seems kind of self-evident. Arguing about why that's god's plan is just a form of asking which crazy is less crazy.

I blame the Methodists

Nah... Can't be the Methodists. Coming up with bat sh!t crazy takes too much time away from the golf course.

What it is, is an outrageous accusation, though probably not a serious one - just gasbaggery. But people take him seriously, and if he says that clicking at the government site will funnel your money into Obama's campaign, some people will buy it and go into rage mode on a false belief. At best, this is utterly worthless commentary, and at worst, it carries some real dangers.

Sometimes liberal sources (I'm looking at you Huffington Post) carry things that are misleading, stupid or completely untrue. When that happens (and HP has been a real crapfest lately), I find it embarrasing. It would be refreshing (and smart) to hear rational conservatives knock Rush a little more often. Wow, this paragraph is rambly and pointless. I need to refocus on work.

Oh noes, now Clinton and George W. are trying to steal your money too!

I don't think Rush ever said Obama was trying to steal their money. Perhaps I am wrong and someone could quote it to me where he did.

From what I've read, he said they will most likely capture your email address (as they did with something else....forgot the entir story) and start soliciting compaign money from you via email.

No, he asked the caller (who called to ask why you'd give money for Haiti at whitehouse.gov instead of to the Red Cross, missing the fact that all whitehouse.gov does/did was provide a link directly to the Red Cross). He never explicitly said "Obama is going to steal money you donate." He certainly suggested that donated money through the Obama administration would not make it to Haiti. Perhaps he meant that it would all be spent buying releif supplies in the United States that would then be shipped to Haiti but that strikes me as too credulous an interpretation.

Rush asked if the caller would trust that such money really would get to Haiti.

Here's the transcript of this portion of the show (I've bolded the relevant sentence), you can find it on many web sites so if you distrust me I'll leave it to you to search for it so you can pick one you trust:


But even if all he had said was "they will most likely capture your email address" this would also be a bogus attempt to direct people away from an information source for how to help in Haiti since the site in no ways solicits information or accepts (at least this was true then, I'm sure it is still true now) donations directly.

Oh, and the Haiti stuff at whitehouse.gov has changed since I looked at it next week. Which I should have known without looking since the Clinton/Bush announcement was made.

If you go to whitehouse.gov looking for information on helping Haiti, here's what you get:

A video of Bush and Clinton saying why help is needed.
A link to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund web site.
Instructions for using text message to donate to the Clinton Bush Fund (similar to the one set up for Red Cross).
How to contact the State Department if you are a citizen looking for information on friends/family in Haiti.
Links to individual government agency pages detailing how those agencies are responding to the earthquake.
And some images you can use on your own Web site to help promote helping Haiti.

Very nefarious stuff, but still no data collection at all (so no email lists) and the Obama administration is not directly collecting funds (so no skimming).

But what about the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund? That is being run through both the William J. Clinton Foundation (Clinton's privately run aid foundation) and the the Communities for Texas foundation (another private foundation with which George W. Bush is affiliated). So if you have a distrust for either Clinton or Bush you can donate through the other one (which is why the sitting president always tries to get one former president from each party for these things).

I would defintiely say that is ridiculous for Rush to suggest the money would not go to Haiti. Agree 100%.

LOL!

Pat Robertson voodoo doll on ebay- proceeds to help Haiti earthquake victims.

^^ That is fvcking awesome. There is also a Rush Limbaugh voodoo doll where the proceeds go to Haiti relief charity.

It's been pulled.

No; its just been relisted.