Pat may be a loon, but he's our loon
Cathy Young | January 7, 2006, 6:08am
Yesterday, after Pat Robertson's inspired remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke as divine retribution for giving up the Israeli settlements in Gaza, I asked if we can all finally agree that Robertson is beyond the pale. A lot of us, apparently, can: the White House has condemned Pat's remarks as "wholly inappropriate and offensive," and Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, says he is "stunned and appalled that Pat Robertson would claim to know the mind of God concerning whether particular tragic events ... were the judgments of God." But tonight, I was pretty stunned myself when former Congressman-turned-Fox News talk show host John Kasich, subbing for Bill O'Reilly on "The O'Reilly Factor," offered a sort-of defense of Robertson, whom he judged to be guilty only of poor timing.
After offering some mild criticism of Robertson while questioning Christian radio talk show host Janet Folger, Kasich inquired of his other guest, Fordham University media studies chairman Paul Levinson:
John Kasich: Your feelings about this, Mr. Levinson? I mean -- is the media sort of grabbing onto everything Pat says and tries to blow it up? I mean, you saw his statement, right? It wasn't a statement out of some mean guy -- he claims that he was quoting the book of Joel, and if you read the Book of Joel and what it says here -- he's basically saying, it wasn't him, it was something he quoted out of the scripture.
Paul Levinson: I have an enormous amount of respect for the scripture, but when people in our modern age try to apply it literally in a fanatical way, it leads to graceless, absurd statements such as Pat Robertson made. If you think about the fact -- the only other public figure who' commented about Sharon's dying being appropriate in any way is the President of Iran, who's a fundamentalist Islamic nutcase.
John Kasich: (chuckles) You're not trying to compare Pat Robertson to the -- this lunatic over in Iran, are you?
Janet Folger: I hope not.
Paul Levinson: I'm comparing two people who are fundamentalists and who don't seem to have a modern view of the world -- who don't seem to understand that the Prime Minister shouldn't be judged according to scripture when he's on his deathbed.
John Kasich: So let me ask you this, then. I mean -- are you saying that what is written in the Bible cannot be applied today? You said that, you know, what we're doing is trying to apply things too literally -- don't you think that in America today, we don't apply it at all, too much of the time?
Paul Levinson: No, I think we apply it just fine in the United States.
John Kasich: Yeah, but when we look at --
Paul Levinson: We have a diversified --
John Kasich: Yeah, but when we look at problems of character, integrity -- whether it's professional athletes, pop culture, whatever -- aren't you basically saying that, you know, let's modernize the whole book? And I think what Pat Robertson is saying, rightly or wrongly, is -- that book shouldn't be modernized. It ought to reflect what that Old Testament says.
Paul Levinson: I'm not saying that the Old Testament is wrong. I'm saying that the literal application of it to a Prime Minister who is trying to bring peace to his region when he is on his deathbed is a very inappropriate statement.
John Kasich: Fair point. Now, Janet, what I need to know from you is, when Pat does things like this or says things like this -- and I think you would agree, it wasn't the appropriate time. Agree with that? It was just not the right time to be talking about this.
Janet Folger: Look, the time you make statements like that is when you can do something about it -- don't divide the land.
John Kasich: So, inappropriate time. The question is, does Pat sort of undermine the movement when he makes a statement like this -- that he might -- which he says was taken out of context or whatever -- does it undermine the movement, the Christian movement? People say, I'm not gonna listen to that.
Janet Folger: You know -- again, I'm not gonna be another voice to bully up or beat up on PR. He's free to defend himself and he's very capable of it --
John Kasich: Yeah, but I want to know what you think.
Janet Folger: -- but I don't think we should blame him for reading from the bible. And I'll be honest with you -- the way I read the Bible, it talks about -- nations that bless Israel are gonna be blessed, nations that curse Israel are gonna be cursed -- and I'll be honest with you, where I worry about the judgment being cast is that I think we need to look in the mirror -- because we're one of the groups, the nations that actually strong-armed the prime minister into giving up land, making Israel less secure. And --
John Kasich: I got you. Now -- People for the American Way, professor -- you know -- against flag desecration -- they're not like some mainstream group, you know -- they're way out there. It's like they grab everything that Pat says, they monitor everything he says. You're in communications -- have we gotten to the point now in America where, with the blogs and the 24-hour news cycle, you can't say anything? It's going to be analyzed, overanalyzed, taken out of context? Don't you think that's fair?
Paul Levinson: No. Criticism of what public figures say is a crucial part of dialogue in a democratic society, which we have. We don't live in a totalitarian state where religious or political leaders can say whatever they please and they're beyond criticism. Pat Robertson chose to say this in a public forum and I think that he's fair game for criticism. It's not the end of the world that he said it -- I don't think he should be executed, I'm not a fanatic myself --
John Kasich: Yeah, and I wouldn't compare him --
Paul Levinson: Well, it's an indication of what happens you apply in a fanatical, fundamentalist way --
John Kasich: Look, I don't think it's a fanatical way -- it's a reading of the Old Testament -- he has his view, to label it somehow, you know, off the deep end, I don't think is fair. Janet, what I'll say to you is, I know Pat, I like him very much, he's been a great leader. He's got to be a little more careful with how he says things and when he says things.
(The complete transcript of the segment can be found here.)
So, let me see if I'm getting this straight. What Pat Robertson says cannot be labeled as fanatical or "off the deep end," because his views are rooted in his reading of the Old Testament. And, of course, you can't possibly compare him to "this lunatic over in Iran," whose views are rooted in his reading of the Koran.
And no, I'm not saying that there's no difference between Pat Robertson and fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. Pat isn't urging people to strap on explosives and go blow up the infidels, nor is he calling for unchaste women to be stoned to death. But, just out of curiosity, if Pat did call for the stoning of adulteresses, would Kasich consider that "fanatical" and "off the deep end," or not? After all, that's based on a very literal reading of the Old Testament.
There's been a lot of talk in recent years about how religiously based opinions have the same right to be heard in the public square as opinions rooted in secular ideas. That's all good and fine; I certainly don't think that someone's position on any given issue is illegitimate because it's influenced by religion, and I think that a lot of the time, secular liberals have been dismissive of certain conservative views for no other reason. But if religiously based ideas should have equal access to the public square, they should not be off-limits to harsh criticism and even ridicule, any more than secular ideologies. If you can spout vicious nonsense and then have it excused on the grounds that it's your interpretation of the Bible, then maybe you don't belong in a public forum.
And how pathetic that, instead of firmly repudiating the odious Pat Robertson, Kasich should try to shoot the messenger and bizarrely suggest that it's unfair for the statements of public leaders to be analyzed too much.
(Cross-posted at The Y Files)
David Eads | January 7, 2006, 11:56am | #
...but it would seem to me that if the Bible as the "word of God" is the cornerstone of one's religion, then it SHOULD be taken literaly. If parts of it are too odious, then toss it.
This is a position I'm deeply sympathetic with, especially given the intellectual contortions of liberal Christians, but it is too simplistic for a couple reasons.
A minor question is: Do you toss the odious parts or the whole thing? If you toss the odious parts, what do you have left?
The questions that are more to heart of the issue, and Robertson's comments, are: what are the context--literary, historical, etc--of the passages he's reading, and how does that affect interpretation? The possibility of a purely literal reading is incredibly naive. The writer(s) of Genesis put two flatly contradictory accounts of creation side by side (God created the Earth in 7 days, God created the Earth in one day). If it is true, as historians think, that Genesis is a compilation of oral traditions into written language made by a group of editors, one has to wonder -- did the writer(s) themselves take the text literally if they were willing to put two contradictory myths in direct sequence? If the writer(s) didn't, what's the mean for how a contemporary person is supposed to read it?
If Robertson wanted to be "Biblical" in the mode that Kasich says he is being, then he would know that Joel (and all other prophets) were commenting on specific situations for their specific times. Only later -- the followers (cult?) of Jesus lead the way here -- would prophets be seen not as social reformists (not in the contemporary sense by any means) but as prognosticators. Taken on its own terms, Robertson and his defenders really can't invoke Joel as a justification for his nonsense. If he was taking the Bible "literally", Robertson should have let God talk to him, found out what God had to say about Sharon, and then told us in the prophetic mode. The only problem here is that I highly doubt God is talking to Pat Robertson (or anybody else), so Robertson, Kasich, et al. have to invoke a dubiously "literal" reading of the Bible to justify their shameful position.
(First post on Hit n' Run, y'all, after reading it for a long time! Also, disclaimer: I'm not a Christian but I do know a fair amount about issues of Biblical interpretation, etc. Do intellectual honest and feasible readings of the Bible therefore make it true? No, but folks like PR and his cronies never even make it that far.)
madpad | January 7, 2006, 12:45pm | #
...but it would seem to me that if the Bible as the "word of God" is the cornerstone of one's religion, then it SHOULD be taken literaly. If parts of it are too odious, then toss it.
This is a position I'm deeply sympathetic with, especially given the intellectual contortions of liberal Christians, but it is too simplistic for a couple reasons.
With all due respect to jw and David Eads, I find your somewhat ill-informed opinion amusing. It seems in addition to not actually being Christian, you know litte about Christianity. It may help for you to separate "biblical" from "Christian." Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's Christian. Christ himself plainly directs that some of the biblical Old Testament practices are plainly wrong - like stoning defenseless ladies to death.
Christians, for the past 2000 years, have eschewed a LOT of the OLD testament crankiness. Most of the issues liberal and conservative Christians argue about have a lot to do with how to follow Christ's example. Now I have my arguments with some liberal Christians. But I have a lot more problems with the Far Right version of things.
DISCLOSURE: I am a regular church attending Christian who is somewhat moderate in my politics. I fall to the right on many issues but occassionally accept a left-leaning idea if it jibes with my faith.
Many Conservative practitioners - Pat Robinson and company - are a revolting example of Christianity being used as a tool to manipulate ignorant folk. They certainly do not speak for me. And I object that my difference of opinion means I'm practicing "intellectual contortions of liberal Christians."
I submit to you that the cherry-picking nature of the far right in selecting the passages THEY think justify their points are no better. They tend to leave out the inconvenient stuff.
The only people Christ is on record as ever getting angry at were people who used the church for their financial gain and self-righteous hypocrites who used biblical law as a basis to attack others.
Christ said "love you neighbor as yourself." Simple and straight forward. He then went on to live according to that maxim while suggesting that it was a good idea the rest of us do the same.
Christ wasn't even the first Jew to come up with this. The Talmud (Shabbat 31a) reports that one Rabbi Hillel (who died about 10 AD) was challenged to recite the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg. He replied "What is hateful to you to you, do not to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, all else is explaination. Go and learn this."
raymond | January 8, 2006, 3:45am | #
Reason is the only way to determine truth.
That statement is wrong twice.
First, because it seems to say that conclusions we arrive at using reason are likely "true". (Whatever "true" means.)
Because we depend on our senses - which can be tricked or are limited - for the raw material we use in reasoning, we cannot be certain that our conclusions have much to do with reality. We can only accept what seems to us to work at the moment.
Because some of our premisses come from others, reasoning requires we put a lot of trust in others, their senses and motives and reasoning. But others may be wrong. Their premisses false.
Take "intelligent design". Using one's senses and the rule of "what works" for (most of) us, intelligent design is a perfectly reasonable explanation for my existence. Add to that the authority of generations of acknowledged "great thinkers" and the reasoned notion of a creator looks... unfalsifiable.
Is intelligent design "true"? I have no idea. Certainly billions and billions of reasoning beings have arrived at the conclusion that it is.
Second, because it says outright that reason is "the
only way to determine truth".
I think there are other ways. Intuition. Instinct. Response to stimuli. Dreams. Meditation. Art.
It seems to me that reason alone (which itself depends on faith) does not necessarily lead to truth. We westerners depend too much, perhaps, on the yang of the scientific method. Perhaps we need a dose of yin to help us round off our "truths".
The earth revolves around the sun. We are descendants of simpler forms of life. Israel, as a democracy, has a right to exist.
You offer these as "truths" arrived at through reason. But you yourself have accepted them all on faith.
In fact, the centre of the universe is Switzerland. (Lausanne, to be exact.) The maths is really complicated, but the movement is a gloriously complex and beautiful swirl of spirals. Worthy of a master clock-maker.
I do not "know" that I have descended from a simpler form of life. My reasoning and ability to choose - which is the essence of "me" - seems to be mine alone. My "I" seems to be the ever-changing result of my environment and choices. Certainly I believe/accept that the matter of which I'm composed is star-stuff. But my "I" is my creation.
And finally, "right to exist." I believe that only living human beings have any rights. If we start applying the notion of "rights" to countries, then we must apply it to animals, plants, committees, automobiles... And then, pretty quickly, the notion becomes meaningless.
Israel, whether a democracy or a dictatorship, has no "rights". She moves in and out of existence like the moon, and rights do not wax or wane.
The people who live within the borders of what is today Israel have rights. The people who live in the occupied territories have rights. Those who were forced out at her creation have rights.
Anyway. "What is truth?"
jw | January 8, 2006, 8:08am | #
"Because we depend on our senses - which can be tricked or are limited - for the raw material we use in reasoning, we cannot be certain that our conclusions have much to do with reality. We can only accept what seems to us to work at the moment."
By what means does one reach that conclusion? By reasoning and drawing conclusions based on the "raw material" of our senses? Likewise, how do we arrive at the conclusion that something "seems to work at the moment" except by inferences drawn from the "raw material" of our senses? Measurements can only be as good as the STANDARD of measurement that is used. The standard of measurement is the one that we choose and we choose it according to our purposes.
"I think there are other ways. Intuition. Instinct. Response to stimuli. Dreams. Meditation. Art."
These may supply some data or propositions, but what validates them? In the end it is Reason.
"It seems to me that reason alone (which itself depends on faith) does not necessarily lead to truth."
Reason does not depend on faith. It depends on assumptions or postulates, ie. basic premises or statements that are self-evidently true. By self-evident I mean that one must first assume them to be true even to doubt them.
"My reasoning and ability to choose - which is the essence of "me" - seems to be mine alone. My "I" seems to be the ever-changing result of my environment and choices."
(with apologies to Ayn Rand) Reasoning and ability to choose, as well as change, pre-supposes or necessitates that which reasons or chooses or changes. That "that" is your volitional consciousness. Likewise, consciousness pre-supposes that which is conscious. It also presupposes something to be conscious of other than itself. (To have identified itself as consciousness it must first have been conscious of something "outside" of itself.)
That which is conscious is your "I" or ego. That which it is conscious of is "existence" or reality. What is the identity of reality? That is for one to determine.
anon2 | January 8, 2006, 8:08pm | #
My point is, relatively few people these days believe that when a storm kills a bunch of people, or a tsunami takes out 1/4 million, that it was because of one of the Gods. Zeus didn't do it. Thor didn't do it. The God of Abraham didn't do it. Relatively well understood meteorological or seismic events did. If we didn't have science to explain those mechanisms, more of us would believe in an active God.
If we didn't know about all the people whom Jesus never bothered to introduce himself to, the whole idea that Jesus's message was the important word of God would be more credible. Sure, the Mormons and some others believe that he did reveal himself in other places around the world, but there's very good evidence that suggests he didn't.
God no longer takes out huge numbers of people at a time for whatever petty reason (and when you think of it, any reason to an omnipotent god is petty) he thinks of. He also doesn't take out individual people. He didn't kill Harvey Milk, MLK, John Kennedy, or anyone else in recent times. Mainstream Christians agree on this.
He doesn't interfere with Thoreau's experiments or the experiments of people creating new computers or ... any experiments.
Many Christians want to distance themselves from Pat Robertson precisely because they think that anyone who suggests God does those things he used to, is a nutjob and they'd prefer not to have their religion so tainted. But that's due to science. We no longer ascribe lots of God-like activity to God. That's what mainstream Christianity is. God is love. Ignore the bad parts of the Bible. All the good and bad stuff now happens in the afterlife.
Who gave me the ability to reason thus? No person or God. It's a byproduct of evolution.
My belief is that the tribalism associated with belief in the God of Abraham is bad for modern humanity. People taking umbrage with PR and not re-examining the Bible are only helping further that tribalism. I wouldn't really care if there weren't real-world side-effects to religious beliefs, but there are. There's good and bad, but increasingly the bad outweighs the good. PR is a side-show compared to e.g. the tragedy associated with the fall-out from the
Catholic church's opposition to condoms or what happens to economies that don't allow the payment of interest.
