Current Features

Gouverneur Morris
America: A Christian Nation?
Ya Gotta Have Faith!
Not-Hearing: Two Examples
The Paradox of Public Advertising
Cleave; Sanction
Doomsday Clock: False Authority Fallacy
Politicians and Their Children
Eric Boehlert Knows Inner Motives!
What is the Purpose of Democracy?
One Mess Created, Time to Create Another
Christians Pursuing Happiness

Read the Front Page

Topics

Big Brother
Blogging
Computers and Technology
Crime and Punishment
Education
Entertainment
Europe
Everything You Know is Wrong
Faith and Philosophy
Faith and Politics
Features
France
Fun
General
Happy Stuff
Health
History
Human Rights
Humor
International
Iraq
Left Versus Right
Media Bias
Personal Notes
Politics
Product Reviews
Quick Alerts
Quixtar
Racism
Science
Science Fiction
Sexuality
Sick & Wrong Department
Society
The Arab Street
The Arts
The Church of Gaia
Travel
Words, Words, Words
Your Money

Archives

January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

Search


The Blogosphere

BitsBlog
Beyond the Rim
Common Sense and Wonder
Dissecting Leftism
Drive-Thru Musings
FunMurphys.com
Insignificant Thoughts
Insomnomaniac
Investor Blogger
Iowa Geek
La Shawn Barber
The Littlest Apologist
Mark D. Roberts
Quixtar Blog
Quixtar Sucks
The Right Scale
Sinking in Quixand


Pat Robertson on Ariel Sharon

I really don't know much about Pat Robertson, as a person. But the mainstream media seems to love him, as a public figure -- I mean, here's a guy without much following, but whom the media loves to quote whenever he says something stupid. And they quote him a lot.

Know why? My theory: Because he frequently comes across as a buffoon, and the media loves to make people think he represents your average Christian (he doesn't) because they're intellectual cowards who are afraid to take on actual credible Christians who might make them look stupid, petty, bigoted, or misinformed.

So we can't focus instead on a guy like Rick Warren, who has donated the entire proceeds of his mega-multi-million mega-seller "The Purpose Driven Life" to charity, can we? Nor Joel Osteen who is sweet and friendly and never condemning on talk shows. Or Max Lucado, who actually does influence many Christians -- and who writes books to support himself and his family, taking only $1 each year in salary from his church. Nope: Can't let people see that Christians aren't anything like the Pat Robertson we see portrayed in the media.

And, for the record: I disagree with Robertson's view, that it is always wrong to "divide God's land", noting that God himself once split the the holy land into the northern and southern kingdoms in response to David's sin, and also allowed Philistines to occupy much of the promised land, and torment the Jews, in response to Jewish idolatry. In fact, he promised as much in the covenant.

I hope Robertson will eventually realize the media loves him for a reason, and will either stop providing ammo to use against most other Christians -- who generally disagree with his statements -- or at least let the gospel itself be the offense, instead of some controversial, half-baked theory he'll inevitably have to apologize for later.


Next, speaking of buffoons, Christians clearly don't have a monopoly:

The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement urging Christian leaders to distance themselves from the remarks. Robertson made similar comments as the Gaza withdrawal occurred, it said.

"It is outrageous and shocking, but not surprising, that Pat Robertson once again has suggested that God will punish Israel's leaders for any decision to give up land to the Palestinians," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the group, which fights anti-Semitism. "His remarks are un-Christian and a perversion of religion. Unlike Robertson, we don't see God as cruel and vengeful."

So a group that "fights anti-Semitism" is on the case because Pat Robertson expressed his opinion that God doesn't favor giving land to Palestinians? Since when is that a form of hatred against Jews? Last I checked, there were many Jews who felt the same way -- someone please let them know they're being "anti-Semitic"!

Foxman is being paid $400,000+ in salary each year (some charity! he probably makes more in donations than Robertson!), allegedly to "fight anti-Semitism". And what does he spend his time and money sputtering aboutt? Pat Robertson, for opposing "land-for-peace"! Calling Mel Gibson antisemitic, for making a movie about Jesus! And slurring conservative Christians for holding the wrong political views. How is that "fighting anti-Semitism"?

So what about those who actually conspire to slaughter Jews daily? Or political leaders who recommend wiping out all mideastern Jews? Or the many leftists who pushed the idea that 9/11 was a plot by Jews? Or political luminaries like Noam Chomsky who give credence to Holocaust deniers?

Nope, no evidence of anti-Semitism there! Foxman's apparently sold out to the left's agenda, instead of condemning those who clearly wish Jews the most harm. His donors should demand a refund!


Another point: I get sick and tired of people who are clearly not Christians, and often apparently don't know the first thing about it, lecturing the rest of us on what is "un-Christian."

Should I say Foxman, since he has sold out to a group of people who oppose everything Torah stands for -- a group which is increasingly antisemitic -- is "un-Jewish"? Do I as a Gentile, have the authority to lecture him on being a Jew, and what he should do in order be Jewish?

If not, where does he get off telling Christian leaders what stance they should hold regarding the Holy Land, and what the "Christian" thing is to do or believe? Has he ever been a follower of Christ?

And of course he is grossly ignorant about what beliefs can be "Christian"! Has he never even read the New Testament, where Jesus says:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

It certainly seems Jesus thought God sometimes punishes people for sin. But, hey, no doubt Foxman would probably have openly accused Jesus of being "un-Christian" as well. (I'm sure Jesus could have learned a lot about following himself from Abe Foxman.)

And did Foxman never open his Torah, and read where God punishes Egyptians, Jews, and other nations? No doubt Foxman would also call such actions "cruel and vengeful" (rather than, I as I see them, a sad necessity). Foxman apparently worships a different kind of God, one who would never do that kind of thing. (And wasn't there some commandment against that?)

I urge Jews everywhere to distance themselves from Abraham Foxman and the ADL. Stop supporting this clown, and his ridiculous attacks on conservative Christians. There are more kinds of religious bigotry in the world than just anti-Semitism, you know. What bites one of us always comes around and bites the other.

Comments

Joan,

I think you're mistaken, on several counts:

(1) You said "Pat Robertson is right." But then you said: "God can divide His land if he so chooses..." Yet Robertson implied it was never appropriate to divide God's land. So it sounds like you're saying "Pat is right" while actually contradicting his stance.

(2) You wrote: "God can divide His land if He so chooses, but Sharon and anyone else cannot." Are you not aware God has divided his land many times, and has always, each and every time, used human beings to carry out his will?

For example, he used Nebuchadnezzar -- a pagan idolator, mind you -- to attack Israel, rip a large fraction of the Jews the land, and thus allow foreigners to occupy some of it. (Lamentations 5:2) In fact, God even called this pagan king who attacked Israel "my servant" for doing so! (Jer 25:9) So you're implying because it was a man's will (Nebuchadnezzar) to do something regarding Israel (for example, attack it and allow foreigners to occupy some parts of it) that it couldn't have also been God's will? If so, the bible contradicts you.

So how do you know it is not also God's will right now that Israel be constricted, at least for the moment, into a more tightly defensible perimeter? If you can't say that He told you this, then what right have you to put such words in His mouth? Do you imagine these things happened without His notice or involvement? How do you know His will here? Tell me!

(3) Robertson claimed that the "prophet Joel" made a "clear" statement that God is explicitly against any who "divide his land." I have re-read the book of Joel, and searched several different versions, and I can see no such statement of any sort there. In fact, the word "divide" never occurs even once there.

So he's apparently wrong on this point as well.

(4) You have said: "Robertson's comments were compassionate to Sharon..." If so, then why did he himself admit they were insensitive? If you think his first statement was proper and sensitive, then you are saying he was wrong in his second one where he himself implied it wasn't.

(5) Robertson's whole theory was that Rabin and Sharon were "struck" in order to prevent the land from being divided. But that's contradicted by the fact the land was divided, and continues to be. If God "struck down" these people to prevent it, then it seems you're necessarily imply God was rather ineffective, since it achieved no such thing.


Is it so hard to believe Pat just made a mistake?

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on January 17, 2006 02:08 AM

Add your two cents...

The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.

















« Hello Milwaukee! (Channel 12 Loves You!) | Front Page | Page Two | Abramoff, Ethics, and Overspending »