Four for the price of one
The point of the theist four-step post was to note that theists tend to think the four beliefs are one – that the belief that there is an X we call ‘God’ includes other beliefs, especially the three cited.
My real point was to emphasize that they are separate beliefs, not one and not necessarily or automatically linked; that they all have to be evaluated, not just the first; that there’s no obvious reason to assume that if ‘God’ does exist it is good (in a sense we understand) (or any other either) or wants us to be good or that we reliably know any of that.
It is worth emphasizing that, because it is somewhat remarkable how often it gets overlooked, how often the discussion is just about exist/not exist while goodness is taken for granted. It’s a very strange thing to take for granted, given the realities of animal life. It’s not at all a strange thing to hope for, to long for, to wish for, but it’s a very strange thing to assume. In a way it would make far more sense to believe there is a God and spend all one’s time imploring it to be kinder. It would make more sense for people to sit around in churches shouting up at God ‘Why are you such a bastard? Give us a break! Have a heart!’ Churches and mosques should be full of pictures of mass slaughters, everything from genocides to tsunamis and earthquakes and droughts, all captioned ‘Why? Why, God, why? Why are you such a shit?’ Along with those pictures would be all the others, not mass slaughters but just the plain everyday ones, which don’t hurt any less just because they’re single rather than mass. And that’s before we even start with illnesses and pain and bullying, and non-human animals. Churches and mosques ought (if they consulted reality) to be museums of suffering; holocaust museums in fact.
Of course, in a way it’s understandable that people start from the other end – from the hope and belief that there is Good in the world, which is then identified as God. It’s understandable, but all the same, it muddies the waters later on.
Of course, the big monotheisms are unusual in assuming a good god – everyone else, from the Aztecs to Kali-worshipping Hindus, has taken the need to propitiate deeply unpleasant deities for granted. And it makes much more sense. But then we return to one of the central aspects, certainly of organised Christianity – the assertion of intellectual supremacy, such that almost all the major premises of theology, starting with the nature of the trinity, are counter-intuitive, and all attempts to define them in a less mentally gymnastic fashion, from the Cathars, various Gnostics, Socinians, Arians, etc etc up to Unitarians, have been pushed beyond the pale…
Or, “Shut up, of course it doesn’t make sense to you, you’re thick!”
Which has been the not-especially hidden subtext of some comments commented upon here previously…
It’s interesting that the standard American Christian fundamentalists have in many ways gone back to the angry/vengeful God who must be propitiated. The fact that God’s anger is turned away by socially sacrificing homosexuals, abortion providers, insufficiently deferential women, and others who deviate from (their particular narrow, bigoted understanding of) God’s Plan rather than literally sacrificing goats or humans is an incidental variation on the basic model of human-divine relations. The limits on what American fundamentalists sacrifice to prove that they belong in Heaven and everyone else belongs in Hell are more a matter of modern society’s imposed strictures rather than voluntarily adopted limitations. Hence violence and terrorism – actual bombs, along with innumerable threats – used abortion clinics, and against gay bars and sometimes other gay-owned or gay-friendly businesses. Oh sure, fundamentalist talking heads officially decry such violence, but they always follow it with a “but” that indicates real support for the ends and only pro forma opposition to the means.
This stuff about theists leaping to the conclusion that god is good reminds me of this Randy Newman song from 1972:
“God’s Song (That’s Why I Love Mankind)”
Cain slew Abel, Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:
Man means nothing, he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
‘Cause he thinks that’s where I’ll be
That’s why I love mankind
I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That’s why I love mankind
The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, “Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won’t take care of us
Won’t you please, please let us be?”
And the Lord said
And the Lord said
I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That’s why I love mankind
You really need me
That’s why I love mankind
Needless to say, it wasn’t a big hit.
Human Rights Convention. Article 6 -States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Folk song, which sings about the non- glorification of the child.
“Give us a break! Have a heart”!
“O God, I beg of you – and touch your feet every time and again. Next birth does not give me a daughter. Give me hell instead”. By: Uttar Pradesh.
Have a heart! Yeah, indeed, have a heart God, wherever you are?
Where are you at all you, as you are not hanging around the churches giving heart or new life?
Has the Holy Spirit by you – been made redundant where these 100 million wee bairns are concerned?
Well, who ever you are/were Uttar you have your wish of hell.
As by all accounts, 100 million girls are missing. I wonder Uttar were the majority of them from your neck of the woods?
“It is not at all a strange thing to hope for, to long for, to wish for, but it is a very strange thing to assume. In a way, it would make far more sense to believe there is a God and spend all one’s time imploring it to be kinder”. Yeah, to others whose fate will inevitably be the same as the wee ones that have vanished from ‘God’s knowledagble earth.’ I can not help thinking how many of them them that vanished – ended up in Dirty dustbins?!!
I do not know how to give an intellectual theist four -step answer So will give B-+W version of what I think of God’s existence. Churches and mosques should be full of pictures of mass slaughters, everything from genocides to tsunamis and earthquakes and droughts, all captioned ‘Why? Why, God, why? Why are you such a shit?
G.Is there anything bad that happens on the U.S. continent that you dont blame on nasty right wing christians G.?
My wife says stuff like ‘I am not listening when you use that emotional language. Noone can reach you then’.
G, she’s right. Lighten up, you frame things so negatively that no-one can exist if they don’t agree with you, and thats my fault too.
Emotionally loaded language: First among Thouless’ thirty-eight dishonest tricks of argument. Apologies for mine, folks.
Useful list, thanks.
I hope I’m not thought heartless to suggest that if prayer had any power at all Madeliene McCann would have been found alive and well by now.
If prayer had any power at all, the world would be a vastly different place in general. Pointing out single cases where it has failed is kind of futile.
Also, Richard, is there any kind of hatefulness and bigotry you won’t defend as long as it comes from a flag-waving patriotic hero?
Shakes head.
Nuff said.
The ‘female circumcision’ thing drives me stark staring mad, but it’s quite common. That one little factlet all by itself speaks volumes.
Well – after all, this move is precisely why I thought of the Dictionary of Euphemisms (which I have got to get back to, one of these days when I’m less busy). It’s all about the euphemization of Bad Stuff for purposes of manipulation. It’s very interesting that there’s so much of it around; why are so many people so keen to euphemize Bad Stuff? We know why people like CEOs and PR people are, but why are [some] journalists, academics, multiculturalists? Keep yer eye on the euphemism; where there is euphemism there is something rotten being covered up.
Maddy McCann is an emblematic and
representational figure for the rest of the three hundred million children that are gone missing. See: Because I am a girl. I do not want to chide the parents for leaving their three children alone, but with the same token, I find it unfathomable that they found it more preferable in leaving them unattended as disparate to taking up the offer of a babysitting service. It was [allegedly] manifestly so to them made available. It enormously beggars belief. Principally as well, in light of, a quantity of years ago when an exceptionally high profile media case of child abduction in Belgium came to the fore. Surely to goodness as parents they must have been cognisant of such iniquity, evilness, immorality and ghastliness and atrociousness in the world. They too as well were on foreign soil and should have been extra-vigilant. Crikey, what a high price for them to have to ay for taking cuisine enjoyment risks! Yeah, yeah, sure enough hindsight is 20/20 vision.
Yes, Maddy’s good start in life had only just begun; it was full of hope and belief judging by the overall make-up of the parents. Nevertheless, the waters swiftly and unexpectedly turned murky and muddy for Maddy. A meddlesome maniac has most definitely made sure of that matter.
Also, two other little mites named, Tasleem and Farzana lives are under threat. Correspondingly, they are aged just three and four year old. They are demanded as penalty for karo kiri. See; B&W news. It is so depressingly distressing.
Where in all of these cases is the perceptive, predictable, erudite, majestic, benevolently sympathetic, empathetic,, compassionate and all powerful God? Can anyone please tell me? As he is [to date] a misnomer
Will he as well come to the aid of the rest of the WORLDS’ powerless unaided sexually abused, physically abused, exploitatively [for child labour] abused children? I very much – without a doubt – doubt it. Yeah, I am certainly without a doubt, he will reveal his godly nature. The wheel of pain goes round and round and round and round. It will never stop. As long as predators exist so too will pain for children and women. Women – as well are not exempt from hurting children. Especially women that have religious power. Power can be a killer, if it is given to the wrong people. Power in the wrong hands has the capacity to destroy the world and all the children and women in it as well. Power dislikes powerelessness and it has to root it out because it irks power. It annoys powers. It makes power feel very aggressive and small. Power at all costs needs to squeeze out the defenceless, the vulnerable, that it after it has preened itself on powerless
I am going off on a tangent had better stop here right now.
Suffer little children to come unto me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Because I Am A Girl: The State of the World’s Girls, to see the Executive Summary!
I posted, ‘the above’ in the theist link attached to this post – but alas, when I logged on to same it was an incorrect link. So, apology for error!
Give us a break! Have a heart!’
“It’s all about the euphemization of Bad Stuff for purposes of manipulation. It’s very interesting that there’s so much of it around”
OB: While you are at it maybe a sibling of “your euphemisim” of the morbid kind might just get a look in.
For example,
“Dysphemisms such as worm food, or dead meat. The corpse was once referred to as the shroud (or house or tenement) of clay, and modern funerary workers use terms such as the loved one (title of a novel about Hollywood undertakers by Evelyn Waugh) or the dearly departed. (They themselves have given up the euphemism funeral director for grief therapist, and hold arrangement conferences with relatives.) Among themselves, mortuary technicians often refer to the corpse as the client. A recently dead person may be referred to as “the late John Doe.” The terms cemetery for “graveyard” and undertaking for “burial” are so well-established that most people do not even recognize them as euphemisms. In fact, undertaking has taken on a negative connotation, as undertakers have a devious reputation”
Sorry about the morbidity!
Not only did the magical thinking of those distressed by the plight of Madeleine McCann not help, here’s a case in which it caused real harm:
http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/content/twm/news/story.aspx?brand=Westonmercury&category=news&tBrand=westonmercury&tCategory=znews&itemid=WeED29%20May%202007%2010%3A12%3A22%3A270
Doug, incongruously so, an analogous Knock, Co Mayo “magical thinking” episode occurred some years ago, which also preciously affected me fairly. A hundred year old farm homestead with four elderly cousins of my uncle was wholly burned and gutted. Julia [one of the siblings] had lit as per usual a candle in honour Our Lady of Knock. It was left on the upstairs landing Unfortunately, three of the siblings, Martin, Julie, and Kathleen who were asleep upstairs were burned alive while in their beds. The remaining sister Rose [who was a retired nursing sister was the primary caretaker of her siblings] slept downstairs and was saved by having put to good use her previous nursing expertise.
The family gave their lives to God in life, but he/she snatched it away from them in such a cruel manner. They were daily mass goers. They literally worshipped the ground that their God walked. Nevertheless, like the kind woman who lit a candle to Maddy it was to be the demise of them all.
Another twist to the story was they had a sister who was a nun in America. She was at the time suffering with Alzheimers and was never to comprehend the undignified cruel manner of the deaths of her siblings. Rose is as devout to God as ever. It beats me this one, I have oftentimes asked her in the past, Why? Why? Why?
“A FIRE which swept through a fourth floor flat in Weston is believed to have been caused by a candle lit by a kind-hearted elderly woman for missing four-year-old Madeleine McCann”.
Mary Luckham, was the lady’s name.
To sum up.
“In a way it would make far more sense to believe there is a God and spend all one’s time imploring it to be kinder. It would make more sense for people to sit around in churches shouting up at God ‘Why are you such a bastard? Give us a break! Have a heart!'”
G,
I actually didn’t see you using emotional language, just clear statements of what you believe to be facts.
Doug,
a suggestion, some web browsers/folks may have problems cutting and pasting huge URLs. If you use tinyurl.com you can make magic short URLs out of your big one. It is very easy. eg, your last link gets turned into….
http://tinyurl.com/2s2jlq
Thanks, BJN. I’ll look into it.
Note to adherents of the candle-and-name-on-paper method of recovering abducted children: Try writing the name on a lightbulb. I guarantee you that your results will be no less satisfactory. Plus, you won’t burn the house down.
G. My problem with your piece was more because you did not specify the type of christian you were talking about,you just use the catch all term of fundementalist,,do you mean the likes of Randal Tery(your words would be very fair if aplied to this jerk)or are you refering to people like pat robertson ect in which case your words would be over the top hyperbole?as to me defending haters and bigots give me an example dzd?
Richard:
I’m not clear on the differences between Randall Terry and Pat Robertson. Would you mind elucidating? Aren’t they just Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum?
G, You appear to be saying that American christians, more than half of the population, and especially their pastors actively encourage murder of gays, bombings of gay bars and of abortion clinics?
You deny talking rhetorically, so it would appear you are talking out your ass.
Richard, “fundamentalist” is actually a pretty narrow descriptive (or rather, self-descriptive) term, at least as it’s used on this side of the pond. Fundamentalist Christians are those who take the Bible to be the completely factual and absolutely true Word of God, period. (They then go on to read it very selectively to support their social biases, just like every other Christian does, but that’s beside the point.) Almost every denomination in America that describes itself as “Fundamentalist” is a part of what Karl Rove reportedly calls “The Base,” the primary source of and support for right wing religious/political extremism in this country – the back-bone of Falwell’s late unlamented Moral Majority. Fundamentalist denominations are the ones which (for the most part) uncritically and enthusiastically support the Pat Robertson/ Tim LaHaye/ James Dobson theocratic political agenda: They politically and financially support what is often labeled “the culture war” – which means the promotion of ignorance (anti-evolution activism, abstinence-only sex education), anti-gay bigotry (so-called “Defense of Marriage”), and control of women (not just anti-abortion, but anti-birth control).
“Evangelical” is the more embracing term, including lots of churches and individuals who are more concerned about social justice than gay-bashing – or are just concerned about religion as such and don’t engage in theocratic politics. In fact, Christian denominations which might share many fundamentalist “back to the Bible” religious doctrines but not the divisive, hate-driven politics of the Falwell/Robertson types generally distance themselves from the extremists by explicitly rejecting the label “fundamentalist” in favor of “evangelical” or other terminology.
I didn’t accuse Christians in general of going back to the religious forms of propitiating an angry god with sacrifices and constant expressions of their own servitude and lowliness, and the politics that goes with that model. Nor did I accuse evangelical Christians in general of the gay-bashing and support for anti-abortion terrorism. But American Christian fundamentalist? Yeah, they do those things. It’s not so much an accusation as an observation.
G. I have studied American polotics(and history) for thirty years so I am aware of the general make up of the christian movement in the U.S.you dont seem to grasp that there is a vast diferance between people like Randal Tery(who is on record supporting the killing of doctors who perform abortions)and Pat Robertson who every time I have seen him interveiwed has condemed this sort of terrorism without reservation. Robertson and his ilk are pretty wacy but they are still mainstream.The fact that Tery,s supporters vote for the G.O.P.does not make them the base of that party a lot of marxists vote for the dems that does not mean the base of the democrat party is marxist!
“while goodness is taken for granted”.
Following on from fire tragedy [which has been rolling over in the mind all last night].
When I thereafter went to visit Rose, [who was once a matron and of whom was saved by the fire] in hospital she predictably was more apprehensive about my well-being. Her other cousin who had spent his life in the Philippines [and who once too often crossed the Philippines authorities on human rights grounds] was in the aftermath of the tragedy a tower of strength. For example, he [along with my uncle] went to the scene of the fire, [their respective grandfathers’ homestead] and gathered in the human residue. It had [by them] to be judged who was who from the way the badly burned bodies landed onto the charred rubble etc. Lifelong experience in the ‘caring profession'[?] [For both of them] stood him in good stead. Human nature as it is saw to it that scavengers had a field day as they looted away at the rich pickings whilst the cousin [and uncle] picked up the indecipherable human vestiges.
Real human goodness amidst real human ungodliness was the concoction to be had on that tragic day in nearby Knock holy shrine.
I could not tell it without including its human bravery element.
“Along with those pictures would be all the others, not mass slaughters but just the plain everyday ones, which don’t hurt any less just because they’re single rather than mass. And that’s before we even start with illnesses and pain and bullying, and non-human animals. Churches and mosques ought (if they consulted reality) to be museums of suffering; holocaust museums in fact”.
Like the following forms of abuse.
Animal abuse
Brainwashing
Bullying
Child abuse
Child grooming
Child sexual abuse
… commercially
Coercive persuasion
Cyber-bullying
Cyberstalking
Dating violence
Domestic violence
Elder abuse
Fabricated or Induced Illness
Harassment
Hate mail
Hate speech
Human experimentation
Humiliation
Intimidation
Mobbing
Parental alienation
Police brutality
Prisoner abuse
Prostitution of children
Psychological abuse
Psychological punishment
Rape
Relational aggression
Sexual abuse
Sexual harassment
… in education
Sexual slavery
Shunning
Slavery
Spousal abuse
Stalking
Torture
Trafficking in human beings
Trafficking of children
White slavery
White torture
Workplace bullying
Related topics
Adult Protective Services
Animal experimentation
Anti-psychiatry
Capital punishment
Child Protective Services
Comfort women
Corporal punishment
Genital integrity
Honour killing
Human rights
Holocaust
Incest
Informed consent
Massacre
Mind control
U.N. Declaration – Human Rights
I think if we put a mirror up to oneself one could nod – in the positive – to a few of the above listed.
Says I [kind of honestly and kind of remorsefully] Confessional time, everyone, own up – to the God that exist, or does he exist?
Marie, “I find it unfathomable that they found it more preferable in leaving them unattended as disparate to taking up the offer of a babysitting service.”
To walk a few hundred yards away to have an evening meal while on holiday, it’s about relaxing, not worrying, hardly negligent, just human. We risk being unable to ever leave a child unnatended for any reason, which is just unworkable anyway…
I have to concur with Marie.T. on this one Nick!
Richard, you are making a highly dubious claim. To wit, this one: “Pat Robertson who every time I have seen him interveiwed has condemed this sort of terrorism without reservation.” Then you haven’t seen many interviews where he’s discussed that sort of thing, if any. When I have watched or read any interview with him, Robertson has ALWAYS expressed reservations when he’s made the pretense of condemning the extremists in general or their violence in particular. Oh, not reservations specifically about the violence. Even so big a blowhard as Robertson has more finesse than that. But on the rare occasions Robertson ever in any way condemns threats or violence against homosexuals or abortion providers – and I’d bet he has only ever voiced such a public condemnation when directly asked about the subject, never simply volunteering it – he has always been careful to also say something about how abortion providers are murderers or homosexuals are horrible sinners. Mouthing empty “Of course threats and violence are wrong…” rhetoric while always being careful to also say how evil and sinful the target of the violence is does not constitute “condemnation without reservation” by any reasonable standard, Richard.
It is especially interesting that you contrast Randall Terry and Pat Robertson and claim that there is a “vast” difference in how extremist and radical they are. In fact, Pat Robertson wrote one of the forwards to Randall Terry’s book Operation Rescue. Pat Robertson wholeheartedly endorses rather than opposes Randall Terry’s extremism. Robertson is “mainstream” only because he doesn’t usually come right out and publicly declare himself how radical his hate agenda is – but he both implicitly and explicitly supports those who are more vocal about their agendas.
The radical theocratic agenda of a Robertson, Fallwell, LaHaye, or Dobson is usually (not very well) hidden behind a thin veil of less radical-seeming rhetoric in order not to alienate the ordinary citizens who support them politically and financially, but their actual agenda is identical. There is not a vast difference between the theocratic radicals and those you have been fooled into seeing as more “mainstream” – there is only a difference in presentation and tactics, not in goals or ideals. Recognizing this is easy for anyone who does a bit of investigation, or even just a bit of critical thinking about what they say and what it necessarily implies.
For another example of how a public “mainstream” figure has the exact same agenda as those who don’t even try to disguise their frothing-at-the-mouth hate-filled extremism, I give you Focus on the Family founder/leader James Dobson. While Dobson has never himself called for the deaths of abortion doctors, he has offered explicit and official political endorsement for the candidacy of two men who have repeatedly and publicly expressed that very goal, including Randall Terry.
As to your misunderstanding of “the Base,” which I put in quotes for a reason, this is what Republican political operatives call the significant minority of the population – 7-10% – who will vote for any Republican candidate over any other candidate no matter what, if only they can be motivated to come out to vote by appealing to the right wing culture war issues they care about most. There is an ongoing dispute whether or not putting anti-gay “Protection of Marriage” amendments on state ballots turned out enough voters (who might otherwise not have voted) to make a difference in various elections, but there is little doubt that the PURPOSE of those amendments was to motivate those voters to come to the polls (where they overwhelmingly vote Republican, of course). In fact, the term “turning out the base” has become very common in American political discourse, and even when used for the Democrats it means the same thing – the significant minority who can be relied upon to always vote Democrat if only they can be motivated to the polls. But the Democrats don’t really have as reliable and large a base of this sort as the Republicans. And more to the point of what I was talking about, the Republican base is pretty much entirely composed of the Christian fundamentalists I’ve been talking about: The evidence for this is everywhere, and I don’t even know of anyone who disputes it – except you, apparently based on some sort of misunderstanding of what the term means.
No one who reads even the lame mainstream media in America would misread my very explicit reference to “what Karl Rove reportedly calls ‘The Base'” for any sort of more vague or general claim that everyone who votes Republican is a fundamentalist, or whatever nonsense you seem to think I meant. Certainly no one who has actually studied American politics in recent years could have made the mistake. So I am forced to conclude that your claimed study of American politics (and history) has been as superficial and confused as your understanding of the supposed vast differences between “mainstream” fundamentalists and radicals like Randall Terry.
G.I would make the point that a lot of what Robertson says can be interpreted in diferant ways depending on your perspective political affiliations ect,what I see when he talks about the subject in question is that he will condem the violence but will also use the opportuniity to state his views on abortion(a sneaky ploy)but that is a lot diferant from Tery,s outright refusal to condem these acts.I have pointed this out before but Robertson is calling for a monotorium on the death penalty,what would you say about that?
As for my study of U.S.polotics being superficial I would point out that your own political outlook often seems to amount to left is right and right is wrong!
Marie, they were checking on her every twenty five minutes. A girl age 6 unattended in her bath got snatched a couple of years ago. Were the parents negligent for being in the living room and not standing by the bath ? Should parents sleep in the same bedroom ?
Maddy’s parent’s left her alone with her two-year old twin brother and sister in their resort apartment in the Portuguese region of Algarve while they dined nearby; the couple returned from dinner and reported that Maddy had been apparently abducted:
Kate McCann and her husband Gerry, a consultant cardiologist have told friends and family they suspect that their daughter Maddy was abducted while her two year old twin brother and sister were sound asleep in cots in either side of her.
…”They kept going back to check the kids every half hour, the restaurant was only 40 yards away… He went back at nine o clock to check the children they were sound asleep, windows shut, shutters shut.”
“Kate then went over to the two- bedroom ground floor apartment and came out screaming the door was lying open, the window was jemmied open”.
How could TWO physicians, who treat people daily–including children and adults and administer all the “proper” warnings relative to care–walk out on three babies? “
NO parent should EVER leave a small child unattended. NEVER. Sleeping or not. Children wake up! No, parents around, good grief, do you realise the havoc a 2 or 3 years old can cause? They could have wondered outside the room looking for their parents, they could have turned on the tub and flooded the room or been scalded or drowned, they could have set the room on fire, if there were matches or a lighter around, one of them could have gotten injured and NO PARENTS around to watch out for them.
How is the resort liable for the parent’s stupidity?
If the police were slow to act appropriately, that is on them. But, still, the fact that these parents left 3 very young children ALONE is squarely on the parent’s shoulders
I think it’s too bad that all the children who are missing, injured, or die each and every day don’t engender the kind of concern and $$$$$ that have been generated on behalf of this little girl.
Yeah two, that’s too young probably, but what if the parentsd been in the dining room of their appartment and not heard ? It happens. What if they’d gone out but a babysitter had not heard the break in and abduction ? You don’t have to wake the neighbourhood up working a door or window open with a jemmy, mark my words… my argument being that if we take every single precaution necessary ever to obviate any harm whatever on our young then.. that would be pretty unworkable, but my perhaps poorly made point is that the real villain here is the person who decided they would break into a holiday apartment at night and steal a child. I don’t think taking this debate any further will particularly serve the purposes of the thread however, Marie, so with all my (considerable) respect I’ll sign off now ! N.
Richard: Pat Robertson taking exactly one stance that is ethical is hardly a redemption for him. He defended Apartheid in South Africa. He preaches hate and bigotry against gays at every opportunity. He explicitly fights against women’s rights and freedoms (not just abortion, because he is a “a wife should submit to her husband” kind of Christian). He fights to put prayer in schools and take the foundation of all modern biological science out of schools. He is opposed the the First Amendment of the Constitution, lies about American history and law at every opportunity to promote the demonstrably false claim that this is a “Christian nation,” and founded a law school for the explicit purpose of advancing and spreading Christian Dominionist theocracy (not under that name, of course, because that would be too obvious). And let us not forget the blood-soaked riches he reaped from his long-term friendly association and business relationship with murderous tyrant Charles Taylor of Liberia.
(You can easily look up any of these things, by the way. They are extraordinarily common knowledge, and all the accusations can be supported by direct quotes from Roberston like these.)
From all his actions taken collectively, I can only conclude that Pat Robertson does not have a genuinely moral impulse in his make-up. Even if he has somehow managed to take a stance advancing a good cause (and his death penalty opposition is his only good cause that I can find, and he’s only given it his verbal support rather than any of his ill-gotten money as far as I can tell), it does not erase the rest of the harm he has promoted. Any objective observer would be forced to recognize that Robertson’s opposition to the death penalty is wildly inconsistent with his reckless disregard for human life otherwise – he certainly doesn’t care about pregnant women with medical emergencies, or the Africans whose political oppression he has supported. All Robertson’s energy and wealth and political clout goes into supporting radical theocratic culture war politics, with occasional lip service at best to the plight of poor people or the injustice of the death penalty. This makes me think that his death penalty opposition is almost certainly motivated by some calculated political advantage rather than any real ethical motivation.
Also, you willfully missed my main point. Your claim that what Pat Robertson says is usually more subject to interpretation and less explicit than what someone like Randall Terry says is EXACTLY what I said. But I also claimed that the difference in presentation does not mean a difference in beliefs or a difference in political agenda, and gave ample evidence in support of that claim (which you ignored). The substance of Robertson’s many radical causes shows this pretty clearly, and his direct endorsement of Randall Terry (writing a forward for his book, no less!) demonstrates it beyond any reasonable doubt.
And for you to accuse me of black & white thinking and oversimplification about American politics is frankly laughable, given your past likening of the U.K. relationship to the U.S. as beneficial in the same way that having a big bully friend on the playground is beneficial to a small kid.
The ‘jemmy’ [for me, in this thread – mark my words] speaks volumes. So, Okay, I will with due respect to you [and the topic] refrain from adding to it any further. No hard feelings.
Horror of horrors Pat Robertson wants school prayer so what! when I went to school mandated prodestant prayer was in every school in G.B.and I grew up to be agnostic!
Also a lot of people gave support to the thug Charles Taylor, for instance Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton.This is probably because his oposition was even more thugish. I agree this stinks but it wasnt just Robertson.
No hard feelings indeed Marie ! Have a good weekend.
G, I admire your dedication to the truth. You have the patience of Job. Richard’s a hard nut to crack, and I use “nut” advisedly.
G. I said I thought the Talor support stank but bearing in mind his oposition at the time it is not so ludicrous to support him(given that choice I probably would choose Taylor)as to Robertson gold mine investment so what he is a buisness man and gold is a good investment,you seem to be under the impresion that I am in love with these Robertson types I am not I just defend them because you are so unfair to them that I feel duty bound to at least ofer a defence!Bill Clinton did so well with his Africa policy didnt he? have you seen hotel Rawanda lately?
P.Good spelling!
Richard:
Thanks for the compliment. Coming from you, that’s high praise indeed.
Nevyézhda! Krúgliy durák! Zádniy prokhód!