If anyone’s a real Christian, it’s Pat Robertson
Posted on January 16, 2010 | 53 Comments
Today’s National Post contains a commentary by Rex Murphy, titled “God’s unappointed spokesman,” which discusses Pat Robertson’s disgusting comments about the situation in Haiti and how they relate to theodicy, a branch of theological study focused on the question of why the “loving” God that many Christians worship would allow for the existence of evil in the world.
Murphy says:
[Theodicy is] an almost archaic inquiry these days, but if anything could revive the subject it might be the puzzling existence, in a putatively benign creation, of Pat Robertson, the egregious televangelist and sometime politico south of the border.
I never thought we’d get a new Paradise Lost out of the paradox of an omniscient Being who tolerates/allows the founder of The 700 Club opening his mouth on a regular basis — Robertson being a scant peg even for the trim matter of a haiku. But after hearing his demented mewling the day after Haiti experienced its earthquake, the world may be ripe for a seminar on this question: Can a merciful Creator co-abide with the mental ejecta of Pat Robertson?
and he goes on:
Here was poor Haiti in rack and ruin, with countless thousands dead, the entire country forlorn and in shocked despair, and, with the camera rolling, the “Christian” Robertson rattled on in full high ignorant babble mode about the country “being under a curse” from some ancient “pact with the devil” in the days of Haiti’s founding.
Yes, Pat Robertson is vile, cynical, manipulative, and despicable in every way, and, yes, his comments were stomach-turning and shockingly callous. But how do those comments make him, as the quotation marks around the word imply, not a “real” Christian? The short answer: they don’t. In fact, they’re perfectly in line with the teachings of the violent and vicious God of the Old Testament. And it’s also important to remember that, no matter how often self-proclaimed “enlightened” “real” Christians conveniently choose to ignore the violent God of the Old Testament, instead insisting that Jesus is the personification of their “loving” God and the basis for their faith, the New Testament isn’t exactly free of violence and cruelty, either, to say the least.
What justification does Murphy have for implying that his interpretation of their shared imaginary friend is any better or more accurate than Robertson’s?
And Murphy continues:
Who made Pat Robertson God’s press secretary that he should speak for Him?
“God’s press secretary”? What? Perhaps Murphy should create a committee of “enlightened” “real” Christians who will dedicate themselves to preventing those nasty, ignorant, “fake” Christians from speaking “for” God. Or, he could, you know, just be intellectually honest and admit that Robertson’s comments were completely consistent with the Bible that provides the basis for the faith that Murphy and Robertson share.
Moving along:
He, Robertson, fulfills every agitated secularist’s caricature of a “dedicated” Christian. If Pat Robertson didn’t exist, Richard Dawkins (with a little midwifery from Christopher Hitchens) would have to give birth to him.
Robertson is no caricature. Quite the opposite, in fact: he embodies and espouses the contents of the Bible on a daily basis. Self-proclaimed “enlightened” Christians can try to deny this all they like. They can claim to be the “real Christians,” the ones who understand that the Bible, when interpreted “correctly,” teaches that God is actually a loving and benevolent deity. In a self-serving manner, these Murphy-ites choose to ignore the violent, sadistic, and cruel nature of the God of the Old Testament, arguing that Robertson and his ilk just don’t get it and that they provide a convenient and easy target for those writers and commentators who are brave enough to question and criticize the automatic and undeserved privilege, respect, and power that is granted to Christianity in public and political discourse. This claim allows Murphy to casually dismiss with a wave of his smug hand the multitude of completely valid criticisms that these writers (and many others) have made.
And he goes on:
Robertson’s outburst is pure gold for the “enlightened” secularist view our age holds of the Christian outlook. It will continue to be mined in the late-night monologues, stuff the op-eds of “progressive” papers, and will serve as justifying illustration for the demeaning hostility that is a marked feature of much modern thinking on faith.
Yes, it is “pure gold.” But Murphy conveniently fails to mention that we “agitated secularists” don’t need Robertson-esque “gold” in order to justify or provide fodder for our claims and critiques. No, to continue Murphy’s metaphor, Christians provide us with more than enough “silver” and “copper” on a daily basis.
And, oh look, he’s playing the “real Christian” card!:
Unfortunately, for real Christians, and for the even greater number of people with simple good sense, the “pastor” has chosen a very ill time to “share” some of the most feeble of [his thoughts]. In the great rebuke that was once, I believe, administered to a legislator from Kentucky, “he should not be let out of doors, lest he blight the crops.”
Sigh. How, exactly, does Murphy know who is a “real” Christian and who is not? If Murphy is going to play the “real Christian” game, then I’ll play, too: if anyone’s a “real” Christian, it’s Pat Robertson, the living, breathing embodiment of the Bible. The Murphy-ites can deny it until they are blue in the face, but the simple fact is that Robertson perfectly personifies and unashamedly displays the contemptible attitudes and the nasty characteristics of their shared imaginary friend.
Try as they might, those who claim to be “enlightened” “real” Christians cannot, in the end, distance themselves from the vile and vicious God of their “Good Book” without practicing a galling level of intellectual dishonesty. In that sense, Robertson is the honest one here. He’s an utterly contemptible and awful person to be sure, but it cannot be said that he does not practice exactly what he preaches.
Comments
53 Responses to “If anyone’s a real Christian, it’s Pat Robertson”
January 16th, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Nice post, thanks. It reminds me of a point Bertrand Russell made, about how we wouldn’t even have what Murphy refers to as “real” Christians today, if not for the forces of reason, secularism and skepticism, pushing the cultural zeitgeist forward, and away from such a primitive world-view.
Three hundred years ago what Robertson said would’ve been applauded, and you’d be attacked for disagreeing with him. Heck, a lot of people applaud him still, today. It’s not like Robertson is stranded alone on an island of make believe toys, he still has many followers and fans.
January 16th, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Pat Robertson wouldn’t know what being a real Christian is if even if one bit him on his behind. His SELF-INVENTED supreme being is an Old Testament bully and a smal-minded ignoramous. Like Pat. Hmmm, must be a connection.
When I was growing up I came to understand God & Jesus were kind & loving. Not like that monstrosity that control freaks who lack the intellectual ability and integrity promulgate.
Hurry up and croak Pat. Satan is tired of your blaming him for everything. He’s got a nice surprise waiting for you.
January 16th, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
I very seldom agree with Rex, but this time he hit this rusty nail right on the head. Pat Robertson has just proven empirically, intelligence is not required for this poorly evolved relative of a chimp to throw poop on himself.
January 16th, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
Sorry Miranda, but I think you are mistaken here. The socially constructed nature of religion means that there are no central truths, and so we are in no position to say that there is a correct version of Christianity that Robertson supports that others don’t. The real issue here is that Christianity provides equal support for the views of the moderate Anglican vicars as for the views of Robertson. Christians certainly can distance themselves from Robertson’s views, because the flexibility of their religion means that they can make up whatever they like, and still call it Christianity. We can’t condemn Christianity because Robertson’s version is the right one, but because it provides no foundation for condemning Robertson based on its texts!
January 16th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
@Aaron: Thank you! & Russell’s point is so spot-on. I remember reading it, but I can’t recall what book/essay it is from. And, yes, it’s sad but true that the “average” believer, at least in America, isn’t too far removed from Robertson. Fundamentalism is moving closer and closer to the mainstream every day.
@Steve Zara: I understand what you’re saying, but I think we are just coming at this issue from completely different directions. Robertson is a Christian who embodies the qualities, attitudes, and attributes that are on display throughout the Bible. His views and actions, as nasty and hateful as they are, are supported by the contents of the Bible. In contrast, the moderate Anglican vicars are playing the cherry-picking game to a huge degree, ignoring the elephant in the room, the hateful God of the Old Testament, the one they like to pretend is just metaphor or ineffable or whatever. As horrible and awful as their attitudes and actions are, in this sense I begrudgingly respect fundamentalists like Robertson a great deal more than the moderate vicars, or the Armstrongs/Eagletons of the world. Robertson is living out what the Bible teaches, while the others are either just choosing the “nice” parts or are pretending that it’s all an airy metaphor or some other such nonsense and being extremely intellectually dishonest by doing so.
January 17th, 2010 @ 5:52 am
I agree with you, Miranda. Extremists are simply highly devout, taking their holy books at face value without using the civilizing filter of convenient interpretation. Pat Robertson reminds me of the embarrassing family member who insists on conspicuously washing the family’s dirty linen in public.
And thanks, Aaron, for highlighting the Bertrand Russell point. I feel that this is at the heart of problems such as that which the international Anglican church is experiencing at the moment with the homosexuality issues in Uganda. The Bible is very clear on homosexuality but the zeitgeist is for acceptance, so the Church is tying itself in knots in an effort to appear relevant in the modern world. As Anne Widdecombe so obligingly (if accidentally) pointed out recently in the Intelligence Squared debate on the Catholic Church, a historical examination of Church views shows that the Church does not in fact appear to have Special Knowledge of right and wrong. In concurrence with Russell, I think that the Church has actually been forced to learn and bend with the rationalist’s world view. This is how Murphy’s modern “real” Christians have been generated.
January 17th, 2010 @ 7:34 am
@mountaingirl08:
Have you read Miranda’s blog entry (the entry which these comments are supposed to be about? You obviously missed the main point, which is that it is quite wrong and mis-informative to say that Pat Robertson is not a “real Christian” (TM), since, contrary to liberal Christian assumptions, his behavior accurately manifests the prescriptions of the Bible.
January 17th, 2010 @ 7:55 am
I know, I said the same thing to myself when i heard what Pat Robertson said. I can’t believe all the Christians speaking out against him. That is what I find appauling, actually. The bible is full of all that crazy stuff, and it pisses me off that Christians won’t acknowledge anything in the old testament except that the earth was created in a week and the 10 commandments and junk like that. Christians have such an easy out. It’s like the old testament is totally off limits to Atheists who protest their faith. I wish we could change that. Pat Robertson tried.
January 17th, 2010 @ 8:24 am
Hey, congratulations on getting featured on RichardDawkins.net!
January 17th, 2010 @ 9:21 am
@Miranda: For other Christinas to claim that Pat Roberson is not a “real” Christian (whatever THAT means) means that they are using the “True Scotsman” fallacy, nothing more. Since their “apologetics” consist of fallacies, rhetorical tricks and special pleading, this should not be shocking.
What should be shocking is that the rest of the world puts up with it. In a just world, Pat Robertson would be stripped of his wealth and power by his own alleged “God” and put to work clearing rubble in Haiti, while his ill-gotten wealth was donated to help the recovery effort. That fact that he continues to preach his vile sewage is one more indication of the non-existence of a just God.
January 17th, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Great article! The Rex Murphy’s of the world take about 10% of the bible then throw the rest out, yet go on to proclaim themselves to be real christians. Though i deplore people like Pat Robertson, he can be given credit for being more true to his ridiculous beliefs.
January 17th, 2010 @ 11:05 am
Of course I agree with your post Miranda, that Pat is the one who is really holding true to the violent bible. But I do think that Murphy should be commended for lashing out at his fellow christians who show horrible human decency. One of the important points of atheists is that moderate christians too easily ignore what their fellow fundamentalists say and do. So while Murphy is making an intellectual mistake in how he perceives his religion, he is at least making a very good moral decision in distancing himself from Pat (of course, this is obviously a very easy moral decision, but one that very few christians do nonetheless).
January 17th, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
@Elaine:
Yes, exactly. That sums it up perfectly.
@Torrie: Yeah, even though all religious people cherry-pick their holy books to a certain extent, some do it WAY more than others, and are extremely intellectually dishonest when they do so. They play rationalization and justification games and attempt to distance themselves from the Robertson types, but they ultimately can’t without being really dishonest and duplicitous.
@Aaron: Thanks, Aaron! I’m extremely happy about that :)
@QuestionAuthority: Yes, and what I’ve learned from reading the discussions about Robertson’s comments/attitudes is that many people seem to think that he’s just a fringe nutjob making YouTube videos in his basement or something. They don’t seem to understand that he has an insane amount of power and money and, worse, that there are many, many people who believe what he does and sometimes even express it in the way he does. Unfortunately, the Ted Haggards and the Pat Robertsons are much closer to the mainstream than many people seem to think.
@Matticus: Thank you :) & Yes, very true.
@Oded: Yes, definitely, Murphy is certainly standing up for decency, and that is to be commended, but, like you said, in this situation, that’s not a difficult stance to take, and, at least as I interpreted it, Murphy’s piece is more about who is the “real” Christian, who is “God’s spokesman,” etc., than it is about Murphy’s empathy or compassion.
January 18th, 2010 @ 3:35 am
Robertson could be said to be christianities bin Laden?
January 18th, 2010 @ 5:01 am
If I read you rightly, your disagreement with Murphy stems from his view that Robertson is not a real Christian. I agree with you on that, he should have said that Robertson is a Christian that he disagrees with with.
My disagreement with you is on your use of the expression ‘God of the Old Testament. My question which one? If you mean the God as portayed by the Deuteronomists then of course PR is very much in line with that one. If you mean the God as found in say the Book of Ruth or Ecclsiastes, then I would have to disagree, this is not the same God.
The Hebrew Scriptures are complex, they were over a 1000 years in the making and there many different versions of God in them. If anyone is dishonest it is PR because he does not acknoweldge the reality of that fact.
January 18th, 2010 @ 8:16 am
Hmmm.. Let me see if I follow his argument:
1) The existence of Pat Robertson supports the New Atheists’ arguments.
2) The New Atheists are wrong, because they must be.
3) Therefore, the existence of Pat Robertson doesn’t count.
January 18th, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
Thanks again Miranda. I think you are quite on t mark here. Among others, Sam Harris points out that while moderate frms of faith are prefferable overall, they donot have t backing of scriptures that fudamentalists have. It is truly those like P.R. who are following scriptures as they are written.
January 19th, 2010 @ 12:36 am
@babrock: Thanks! :)
January 19th, 2010 @ 12:43 am
@James Sweet: & Oh, also, I love your blog! :)
January 19th, 2010 @ 4:23 am
Good argument, MCH.
I really don’t get why so many people give the New Testament such a free ride from a vengeful god; it is from Jesus-is-love that we are introduced to the New and Improved afterlife of eternal damnation. Gee… how loving.
That point aside, I love my weekly dose of Rex and his acerbic wit. If nothing else, he improves my vocabulary. But on this occasion (I don’t subscribe to the NP) he is wrong on exactly the point you raise: that Pat constitutes a REAL christian as much as any other… except he has a wider audience than most. If false respect for the faith befuddles even a Great Brain like Rex’s, then we need more clear thinking from people like MCH to counter the befuddlement.
January 19th, 2010 @ 7:35 am
Murphy has it backwards: If people like Pat Robertson didn’t exist, then the modern practice of Christianity would be different and so Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens wouldn’t write about religion the way they do.
January 19th, 2010 @ 11:07 am
@tildeb:
Thank you so much! And excellent point regarding the correlation between the “loving Jesus” and the development of/threat of the nastier form of Hell. I hadn’t thought of that before.
Honestly, and this is probably kind of pathetic, but the very little I knew about Rex Murphy before reading this piece came from his public bickering with Tom Green, and how Green named is parrot after Rex.
& Thanks again! Also, I can’t remember if I’ve mentioned it yet, or if I’ve commented on your blog or not (one of the great things about my blog getting a lot of attention is that it’s helped me to discover new blogs, new online friends, etc., but it’s also hard for me to keep up with those things sometimes and doing so can sometimes take me a while), but your blog is fantastic. I’ve subscribed to it and will add it to my blogroll soon, once I get around to giving the blog list a much-needed update.
@Alyson Miers: Good point. And that’s another thing that I found annoying/frustrating about Murphy’s piece: he assumes that if people like Robertson weren’t so vocal and didn’t have such influence, those of us who write about these things, whether on a small scale or a larger scale, wouldn’t have anything to write about. And that’s bollocks, because, like I said in my post, we already have more than enough to keep us busy.
January 21st, 2010 @ 4:33 am
Ya gotta love the “No True Scotsman” argument. So far in my fifty+ years, by this idiot argument (and ‘atheists’ like Steve Zara enabling them) I have never once, not once, met a “True Christian.”
I have actually burst out laughing at more than a few of the godbots who have used the most ridiculous, convoluted excuses to explain why people like Robertson are not “True Christians.” The argument is simply this: “That shouldn’t be done, said, or thought. Therefore, that person is not a ‘True Christian’ like me.” And it is, of course, pure old bullshit, in its smelliest form.
It’s quite simple, really, even aside from the execrably tortured ‘reasoning’ of wanna-be philosophers like Zara. If you use the bible in any way, claiming it is either the infallible word of ‘god’ or merely a very good guidebook that must be followed, then you believe that people should suffer in life and suffer unimaginably after death. And therefore that Robertson is completely within bounds stating that the Haitians deserve what they are getting. Q.E.D.
Not so tough, but for some reason there are ‘atheists’ around who feel compelled to obfuscate the issue by trying to sound all scholarly and worldly by reiterating the “No True Scotsman” argument with multi-syllabic words, as if it has any validity with bigger words than smaller, as Zara did.
You are entirely correct in your presentation and it should be on the front page of every newspaper. I’d love to see how the lying, hypocritical godbots would react once their filthy, disgusting human-hating beliefs are aired in public.
Keep up the good fight!
January 23rd, 2010 @ 8:52 am
@Logician: Thanks, as always, for the support! :)
September 9th, 2010 @ 5:11 am