Pat Robertson (again)
Discussion
I know this has been mentioned elsewhere, but the story continues:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8460520....
Once again, American 'Televangelist' Pat Robertson says something crude that sounds like a proclamation from the middle ages. Which is probably the era that most of his reading and morals come from, so I suppose it figures. This is just how his world view works, and a few centuries ago he would have been in good company (well, plentiful company).
Robertson is sort of an easy target, though. He tends to say stupid things at any opportunity (similar story with hurricane Katrina and any other natural disaster he hears about) and I am fully aware that the vast majority of religionists are a million miles away from this man's particular brand of mental.
The White House are correct in that Robertson's comments are offensive to a lot of people, but I reckon they're only actually harmful to moderates in his own faith. I don't even think the extra publicity benefits him - he's famous enough as it is in the US, this sort of broadcasted belligerence just helps to discredit the occasional less-insane thing he might say.
(... and that's how to use three paragraphs to essentially say, 'What a cock'.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8460520....
Once again, American 'Televangelist' Pat Robertson says something crude that sounds like a proclamation from the middle ages. Which is probably the era that most of his reading and morals come from, so I suppose it figures. This is just how his world view works, and a few centuries ago he would have been in good company (well, plentiful company).
Robertson is sort of an easy target, though. He tends to say stupid things at any opportunity (similar story with hurricane Katrina and any other natural disaster he hears about) and I am fully aware that the vast majority of religionists are a million miles away from this man's particular brand of mental.
The White House are correct in that Robertson's comments are offensive to a lot of people, but I reckon they're only actually harmful to moderates in his own faith. I don't even think the extra publicity benefits him - he's famous enough as it is in the US, this sort of broadcasted belligerence just helps to discredit the occasional less-insane thing he might say.
(... and that's how to use three paragraphs to essentially say, 'What a cock'.)
Yes, the 80 year old Pat is an easy target.
However, when Danny Glover said that the earthquake was a result of Global Warming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/danny-glo...
...there was no White House condemnation because of that. Possibly because the White House "believes in" that particular religion.
If you are going to condemn stupidity (of which Pat's comments certainly apply), it's best to be consistent.
However, when Danny Glover said that the earthquake was a result of Global Warming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/danny-glo...
...there was no White House condemnation because of that. Possibly because the White House "believes in" that particular religion.
If you are going to condemn stupidity (of which Pat's comments certainly apply), it's best to be consistent.
SimonSaid said:
I know this has been mentioned elsewhere, but the story continues:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8460520....
Once again, American 'Televangelist' Pat Robertson says something crude that sounds like a proclamation from the middle ages. Which is probably the era that most of his reading and morals come from, so I suppose it figures. This is just how his world view works, and a few centuries ago he would have been in good company (well, plentiful company).
Robertson is sort of an easy target, though. He tends to say stupid things at any opportunity (similar story with hurricane Katrina and any other natural disaster he hears about) and I am fully aware that the vast majority of religionists are a million miles away from this man's particular brand of mental.
The White House are correct in that Robertson's comments are offensive to a lot of people, but I reckon they're only actually harmful to moderates in his own faith. I don't even think the extra publicity benefits him - he's famous enough as it is in the US, this sort of broadcasted belligerence just helps to discredit the occasional less-insane thing he might say.
(... and that's how to use three paragraphs to essentially say, 'What a cock'.)
Surely though, if you have utter faith in the existance of god, you would believe this to all be true? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8460520....
Once again, American 'Televangelist' Pat Robertson says something crude that sounds like a proclamation from the middle ages. Which is probably the era that most of his reading and morals come from, so I suppose it figures. This is just how his world view works, and a few centuries ago he would have been in good company (well, plentiful company).
Robertson is sort of an easy target, though. He tends to say stupid things at any opportunity (similar story with hurricane Katrina and any other natural disaster he hears about) and I am fully aware that the vast majority of religionists are a million miles away from this man's particular brand of mental.
The White House are correct in that Robertson's comments are offensive to a lot of people, but I reckon they're only actually harmful to moderates in his own faith. I don't even think the extra publicity benefits him - he's famous enough as it is in the US, this sort of broadcasted belligerence just helps to discredit the occasional less-insane thing he might say.
(... and that's how to use three paragraphs to essentially say, 'What a cock'.)
Fekin religous nut jobs.
ErnestM said:
Yes, the 80 year old Pat is an easy target.
However, when Danny Glover said that the earthquake was a result of Global Warming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/danny-glo...
...there was no White House condemnation because of that. Possibly because the White House "believes in" that particular religion.
If you are going to condemn stupidity (of which Pat's comments certainly apply), it's best to be consistent.
Great point. Robertson's comments are so frequently stupid that he has become part of our comedy fabric, but Glover and the cultural elite would not dare question global warming priests or their proclimations. However, when Danny Glover said that the earthquake was a result of Global Warming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/danny-glo...
...there was no White House condemnation because of that. Possibly because the White House "believes in" that particular religion.
If you are going to condemn stupidity (of which Pat's comments certainly apply), it's best to be consistent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff