Few things are less surprising than Pat Robertson making ignorant and offensive comments about the earthquake in Haiti. As I will explain, I am not sure that attacking him is the best use of anyone’s time. Nevertheless he has provoked me to rank my top five things to remember about him—less as a direct response to his comments than as a way to cut though the media frenzy caused by the comments and to address wider issues raised by his career.
Most people know that Robertson interpreted the quake in the context of Haitians who supposedly “swore a pact to the devil” during Haiti’s war for independence from the French. According to Robertson, they told Satan “we will serve you if you will get us free.” Satan then responded, “OK, it’s a deal” and “ever since, they have been cursed.”
Is this worth acknowledging? Comments by Robertson that are racist, sexist, arrogant, complacent, misleading, and/or embarrassing are like a bus: if you miss one today, there will be another tomorrow. Those who stir the pot by writing “can you believe he said that!” do not always seem to grasp that Robertson makes such comments continually. The question is when and why a larger public tunes in and makes an issue of it—and who benefits if they do.
Often it is Robertson who benefits, and a ritual of liberals mocking him actually strengthens his subculture. Susan Harding’s Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics (Princeton U. Press, 2001) shows how leaders of the New Christian Right (NCR) purposefully hone a rhetoric that creates “gaps” of credibility for listeners. Such gaps continually challenge people who are tempted by NCR rhetoric to reaffirm loyalty to their leaders—and by extension to burn bridges that could change them from believers to skeptical outsiders. The more outrageous the gaps, the more that reaffirming loyalty in the face of them allows conservatives to maintain their self-image as misunderstood and persecuted. Thus they can discount Robertson’s flaws within frames like “the sincere leader with feet of clay” (who, like King David, models repentance and rehabilitation) or the “truth-teller quoted out of context” (who, like Christ, will triumph in the end.)
Meanwhile, beyond an NCR subculture, sensational images of Robertson as a fringe figure—an extreme loose cannon—underplay continuities between him and mainstream conservatives, making allies with roughly similar ideas seem like lesser evils.
So I wondered whether to acknowledge Robertson’s latest provocation. It bores me, and I feel cheapened even to think about it as I worry about one of my students who has not yet returned from a mission trip to Haiti. When I needed a religion-oriented news tidbit to pique student interests, I did not seriously consider Robertson above Brit Hume’s suggestion that Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity, since Buddhism does not “offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption” he needs.
Still I could not resist clicking on a list of Robertson’s top ten greatest gaffes that I found in the blogosphere. It was amusing to ponder the rankings. Does Robertson’s feat of leg-pressing 2000 pounds (thanks to the diet shakes he was selling) deserve first place? Does his blaming 9/11 on LGBTs merit only fourth place? How can we forget Robertson praying for the deaths of liberal Supreme Court Justices? Pondering such matters led me to a comment thread about Robertson on Salon. Amid the predictable responses (much hateful mocking, a few claims that he was quoted out of context, and conflations of his Christianity with “religion” at large) there was a challenge to non-Robertsonite Christians: Given that ordinary Muslims are incessantly challenged to repudiate Osama bin Laden, why aren’t liberal Christians under similar pressure to repudiate Robertson?
I’ll take that bait. An ongoing aspect of my life—one of its taken-for-granted background assumptions—is repudiating people like Robertson. (I suppose most Muslims would say analogous things.) I have written many articles attacking the NCR or pressing liberals to be less wishy-washy in distancing themselves from him, and I wrote a book with a section on the NCR that ends with this reaction to a conservative leader from a radical Nicaraguan priest: “I do not see how we have the same faith; we do not believe in the same Christ.”
Still, I do worry about attacking Robertson in ways that help rather than hurt him.
So here is my own “top ten” list—except that it stops at five, and it spins the morals of its story differently from a standard “let’s mock Pat for being clueless” approach. Feel free to suggest five more in comments.
5) Robertson plays his part in the Iran-Contra scandal.
During the Central American civil wars of the 1980s, Robertson helped fund “cities of refuge” in Guatemala (what were called “strategic hamlets” in Vietnam), and camps for Nicaraguan Contras. Though trivial in scale compared to the policies of Bush and Cheney, allies of Reagan, funded illegally through the Iran-Contra connection and related schemes, were carrying out sadistic massacres in parts of countries they considered to be too leftist. Congressional Democrats were trying to stop the violence; which is what led Reagan, Oliver North, and others to develop illegal channels. Robertson cheerfully presented his piece of this puzzle as an opportunity for Christian mission. He even appeared on camera, with no apparent shame, to pray with Contra troops.
The moral: Since we already knew how Robertson is willing to stretch the law when he feels he has a divine mandate, we merely note this in passing—but we pause to recall the depths of criminality among Reagan’s operatives, and to reflect on how many from this cohort could have been prosecuted for activities related to the Iran-Contra scandal.
4) Robertson fuses with News Corp.
Robertson built what was once the nation’s fourth-largest television network—partly through claiming tax breaks as a religious ministry. Then he cashed in when Rupert Murdoch acquired what was then known as The Family Channel.
This story has two morals: The first is that Fox News and Robertson’s “news” deserve about the same degree of respect from journalists. Second, critics have raised questions about the legality of financial transactions related to Robertson’s business empire. Although at this point there’s no way to determine how well these accusations would hold up in court, we can easily imagine more diligent investigations.
Tags: antichrist, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, fema, fox news, iran-contra, jerry falwell, katrina, new world order, pat robertson, republican, ronald reagan, rupert murdoch, satan
A televangelist, Pat Robertson’s response to the Haiti’s earthquake is awful. He said,
“Something happened a long time ago in Haiti … they were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever … and they got together and swore a pact to the devil, they said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the French. True story.”
However, we have to remember that they are Christians. When we see some bad effects such as sufferings, earthquake, and death, some people consider them as God’s punishment, look for some causes (sin), and simply connect them each other. Their logic is that bad consequences result from bad causes. Then how can they interpret bad effects which happen to almost everybody everyday? How can they interpret Jesus’ death according to this logic? Was Jesus’ death the consequence of his sin?
In John 9, when Jesus’ disciples saw a man blind from birth, they ask Jesus, “who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus said, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” Although this answer has some hermeneutical device to solve, this answer is totally different from Robertson’s.
Is Robertson’s response not a kind of shamanism? This kind of response of fundamentalists makes God a merciless God and forces Christianity to separate from the world. Is he really in a sense different from atheists who criticize Christianity and who deny God because of these sufferings?
@dongsik:
You wrote:
"Their logic is that bad consequences result from bad causes. Then how can they interpret bad effects which happen to almost everybody everyday? How can they interpret Jesus’ death according to this logic? Was Jesus’ death the consequence of his sin?"
Actually, that's an Old Testament reading of the cause for suffering and death. Bad things were often a 'test' of one's faith (see Job)...and are often still seen that way by believers in many religions.
The difference in the New Testament is that God sent his (sinless, perfect) Son Jesus to earth to "die for our sins" - doctrine says that He lived a blameless, sin-free life, and the three days after his death were spent in Hell, 'paying' for humanity's collective sin, so that we would not need to do so for ourselves. He defeated Satan, rose from the dead, and then ascended into Heaven, returning to the right hand of God. Hence all who believe in Him and ask for forgiveness for their sins are granted that forgiveness and thereby go to Heaven. Those who do not are still doomed to Hell. Our time on Earth is one long 'test', in a sense.
That's the very basic framework within which Christian missions and churches operate. They use natural disasters to "prove" that God is unhappy and that conversion and prayer will end the suffering.
You also write "so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” (...) this answer is totally different from Robertson’s."
Perhaps, but the two are also not mutually exclusive: I suspect that Robertson would also agree with this if asked. No doubt his organization is ready to act as the hand of God in Haiti, via the donations of many Christians who share THIS view, even if they don't share his OTHER, more extreme points.
FWIW: I was raised Christian, but generally decline to affiliate with that label now because I so rarely feel that it's understood in the way I mean it. Robertson's God is not my God.
Your question, "Is Robertson’s response not a kind of shamanism?" took my breath away. I am aghast at the ignorance of shamanism your question reveals and am obligated to answer.
Clearly, your take on shamanism appears derogatory,and that is your right of course, but to equate the most ancient of all healing methods on the planet -- a spiritual practice and not a religion -- to an extremist, fundamentalist, judgmental hate-monger is an alarm signal of yet even more fundamentalist misjudgment on a sweeping scale.
Shamanism is the world's oldest medicine. You would not be here if the shamans of your ancestors had not doctored them so you could be born. Natural medicines, such as tree bark and plants, were used by shamans to heal the sick (modern aspirin comes from tree bark.) In addition, shamans engaged in ecstatic experiences to commune with spiritual realities, which is no different that the religious ecstasies of charismatic groups, the Mormon president's revelatory experiences or the Pope's personal communion with spiritual forces. Shamanism represents humankind's first known interaction with spiritual realities and in fact there are numerous scholars who recognize that Jesus was a shaman,having taken this up from his own culture where shamanic practices were common. Healing, casting out demons, and "riding the chariot" of God are all shamanic in nature.
The difference between shamanism and religion is that shamanism has no codified dogma...spirituality is a personal matter. Shamanism is not...and I repeat...not earth "worship" but rather, a practice of showing reverence for all living things, including the earth that gives life to the beings that live on it.
So NO...Robertson's response is NOT "a kind of shamanism." If he were pure in heart enough to be a shaman, his hypocrisy and vitriol would have ever been a discussion.
I'm not sure about Robertson as "shaman," but I do think it is interesting that he was praying for the deaths of Supreme Court Justices, and then turns around and buys into a stereotypical discourse about voodoo curses. Would his prayers also be mentionable as "curses"?
Also as long as I'm writing, here's the hyperlink to the top ten list I mentioned in the article.
linked text
Very observant to cite “gaps” of credibility as providing a ratchet effect for cult adherence. One could also cite the "big lie" in a similar vein.
This applies clearly to Christianity and religion at large. Jesus=god? God exists? Bible = god's word? All whoppers (gaps) of the sheerest emptiness and audacity. Which require faith to adhere to.
Thank you for such insight. Now let me get back to evidence and reality.
Are you trying to imply that all statements by all self-identified religious people are equal in their credibility? And/or equal in how pragmatically constructive they are? If so, that doesn't seem very insightful or, well, credible. (Even some of Pat Robertson's comments are more credible than others before we move on to other cases that are more interesting.)
Mark, would you mind if I added a hypothetical to your last paragraph? What if we had a President of the United States belong to a church where the pastor talked about God damning America and how America got what what it deserved on 9/11? What if this President actually viewed this pastor as a close friend and mentor and mentioned him prominently in his autobiography? ...Oh wait.
And what if the president used 9/11 as a reason to start a pre-emptive war against a non-threat because they had oil that his rich friends wanted to control, so the plan was to wipe out the government, build the strongest fort zone the world has ever seen, and stay there for 40 years to control things as the oil fields were developed? What if that president backed it up with torture of those he defined as the enemy, and he had a loose definiton. What if he outsourced the war so that his rich friends not in the oil business could profit from building weapons and sending mercenaries to the war zone? I guess the passion of Rev. Wright helps the base forget those other things.
Jim, assuming that you're correct in all your assertions, what do they have to do with being influenced by extreme religious leaders?
And I don't get your implication that I'm part of some pro-Bush base. You're very wrong to assume this. I was simply using some rhetorical flourish to show that religious extremists are found across the political spectrum.
And btw, Obama's not exactly rushing to get us out of that war you mentioned. He can't even seem to close the Gitmo prison. Oh well, at least these failures indicate that he's not beholden to his former religious mentor.
Assuming I am correct in all my assertions, my theory is the vanity of Christianity became allied with the greed of the party of the rich, and this brought war and torture. Bush was a part of this alliance, and Pat Robertson was too. I think Obama is trying to do what he can to help the nation and the world. Perhaps things are so messed up nobody knows what to do right now, but at least he is trying. This is different from Bush who did all he could to help his base which was as he said, the haves and have-mores. Robertson just wants to see the world destroyed so that he can get rapture and show all the non-believers he was right.
I don't consider it damning that both Bush and Obama (and Shakespeare and Wyclef Jean and Timothy McVeigh, etc. etc.) often evoke Biblical images to back up what they are trying to do. The question is WHAT they are trying to do-- is it thoughtful and constructive?
So it goes back to the comment about credibility that I made earlier. Robertson's people claim he is being quoted out of context; Jeremiah Wright's people claim he was being quoted out of context about basic truisms like "you reap what you show" or "chickens come home to roost." It should not be difficult to understand (and if I had more time I'd make the argument) that one of these two claims about being quoted out of context can be more credible and insightful than the other.
Thank you for your response, Mark. My purpose was obviously to point out that there's plenty of religious extremism to go around. Still, I believe we should judge political leaders on what they actually do and not on what religious company they keep. You seem to agree with this in your comment, but your article seems to cut in the other direction, no?
Prescott, himself of Oklahoma, has good oped piece up today at www.ethicsdaily.com on Holy Words and Zealotry stemming from pushback he got for his comments in superb doucmentary shown recently nationally
www.differentbookscommonword.com
Denzel Washington of the Book of Eli has endorsed the documentary.
nice post this one.. and i read your post.. and i m so impress about your post.. thanks for shearing a nice info..
Beta Alanine Pro
For the record, I grew up Catholic & was an altar boy for many years, back in the 'end-times'of the Latin Mass. Lest one get tied up in the complexities of religiosity & the televangelists , with discussions of texts, verses , etc. Religion is based on faith ; not facts. Every true believer is someone else's heretic. America; like most western nations ; is a secular republic ( democracy.)
Within the bubbling cauldron of right wing theology is a marked tendency to revise history, so a tidbit from reality :the story of the pilgrims of Plymouth Rock fame. Yes , they fled Britain seeking the freedom to practice their faith unhindered. And they found it , ...in Holland.But they also found complete freedom of religion for all faiths, & they wren't about to tolerate this ; being in possession of the only real truth there ever was.So , they came over to the New World , where there was minimal competition, & only 'savage' inhabitants to be converted with all the zeal they could muster. As for the rumors that they bought butane lighters & headed over to Salem at one point to burn those ever-irritating witches , ....I do not know.( Just kidding.)But they are dangerous, because like fundamentalists of any religion ; they operate with the universal fear that inflicts most of humanity ; that being : what happens to us ; if anything; after we die?And, we do die. The only verifiable line from the Bible: 'Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shall return.'
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.