The really scary stuff
69 RepliesJump to last post
I don’t know if prior posters believe in his comments or follow him but to me Pat Robertson is a PYSCHO. This stuff is scary
Haiti, the devil and Pat RobertsonBy David Waters
Pat Robertson is at it again. The purported Christian minister who suggested assassinating Venezuela leader Hugo Chavez and nuking the U.S. State Department, the reputed follower of Jesus who blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina on pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians, is now attributing the Haitian earthquake to Haiti's "pact to the devil."
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about," Robertson said Tuesday on his 700 Club show. "They were under the heel of the French, 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 will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
One can only assume that Robertson is alluding to the fact that a majority of Haitians believe in and practice some forms of voodoo. Perhaps he's also referring to the fact that Roman Catholicism is the official religion of Haiti. It's also possible Robertson doesn't know what he's talking about.
Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist and author of the book "Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite," suggests that Robertson does indeed know what he's talking about, and why: "Pat Robertson continues to distinguish himself as American evangelicalism's most flamboyant spokesperson. When tragedies strike, people naturally ask questions about why bad things happen to the innocent, and millions of Americans see the hand of God or the devil at work in natural calamities," Lindsay said. "But few religious leaders today draw the kinds of explicit connection as Pat Robertson has done with the Haitian earthquake. Robertson's comments reflect as much his rhetorical flourish and skill as a ratings booster as they do his theology."
Years ago I wrote a column saying that we should pay attention to the crazy things Robertson says because his thinking reflects the thinking of millions of fundamentalist Christians, many of whom support his multi-million-dollar "Christian" media empire and the political views he espouses. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe the time has come to stop paying attention to Pat Robertson. Surely the time has come for Robertson to stop making such shameful comments. Considering the massive death, destruction and misery in Haiti, it is shameful for anyone -- but especially a so-called minister of the gospel -- to suggest that God or the poor people of Haiti had anything to do with it.
Do you agree?
Robertson is like the white stuff at the corners of your mouth. He’s an idiot.
Although the suggestion to assassinate Chavez has merits.
I agree. The man is an idiot. I have an uncle who listens to Pat Robertson. He calls me every so often and frets about his accounts because Pat says the world is ending or a major catastrophe is going to happen. The man is nothing short of a God-Pimp. Unfortunately the folks like him are the most visible because of their TV programs. However, the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers and false prophets.
In my opinion the only thing the Haitians are guilty of is shoddy building codes, or lack thereof.I think he is closer to the brown stuff at the corners of the opposite hole, or is that crossing the line ? There are plenty of Christian Ministries in Haiti that are funded by groups in the states that have been making a difference for years in a land that is extremely dangerous and often times corrupt. I wonder if that clown thinks those people "deserved" this. The most ridiculous part of this entire thing is when 3,000 people die on 9/11 and 3,000 people die on Katrina , American's were opening their wallets to help. 100k plus are probably dead from this and I am willing to bet the donations will be less. Makes me sick.Robertson is like the white stuff at the corners of your mouth. He’s an idiot.
Although the suggestion to assassinate Chavez has merits.
[quote=Ron 14]
The most ridiculous part of this entire thing is when 3,000 people Americans die on 9/11 and 3,000 people Americans die on Katrina , American's were opening their wallets to help. 100k plus are probably dead from this and I am willing to bet the donations will be less. Makes me sick. [/quote] Fixed.Are you f***ing kidding me ? So you were ripping Spiff for not wanting to embrace people who had a lifestyle he didn't agree with, but you think it is fair that American's are more likely to help a tragedy in their own country then one on a much larger scale elsewhere ?
[quote=Ron 14]
Are you f***ing kidding me ? So you were ripping Spiff for not wanting to embrace people who had a lifestyle he didn't agree with, but you think it is fair that American's are more likely to help a tragedy in their own country then one on a much larger scale elsewhere ?
[/quote] Fair has nothing to do with it. If we're attacked by terrorists and our soul has been ripped out like on 9/11 then of course we're going to rally around each other more than we would if an earthquake happened in another land. The bottom line is we are at the end of a recession of epic proportions and the resources that many people would use for donations or help a few years ago just aren't available today.Lock EDJ - “My belief comes from some simple truths - Love your neighbor as yourself”
Unless they aren't American's ? 3rd- Fair has plenty to do with it. 9/11 was in the middle of an economic downturn also. Yes, you have a point because we were attacked, but what about Katrina ? Should we not send any aid to Haiti because of the economic downturn. You mean people can't spare a few hundred bucks or even $5 ? I am looking out the bank window now, plenty of clowns in the Starbucks drive thru. $5 goes a long way in Haiti.After just checking out these articles I think its safe to say that Americans, at least our government, is doing its best to do our part:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/13/spearheads-global-response-haiti-earthquake/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/14/clinton-early-estimate-number-casualties-haiti/ We'll see what happens with the public donations, I guess. Twitter and Facebook are evidently helping a lot as well: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953379_1953494_1953528,00.htmlRipping? I bit overstated. I did disagree. And I'm not sure how you draw the comparison between one's perception of others, and the act of charitable giving. Are you suggesting the scale of the devastation dictates where my charitable giving should go? How do I handle Rwanda? What about the Indonisian Tsunami? I feel for Haitians. Their lives are no more valuable to the world - and no less - than the stock brokers on the 105th floor of the WTC. But giving starts at home, even while loving thy neighbor as thyself. At the end of the day, resources are limited.Are you f***ing kidding me ? So you were ripping Spiff for not wanting to embrace people who had a lifestyle he didn’t agree with, but you think it is fair that American’s are more likely to help a tragedy in their own country then one on a much larger scale elsewhere ?
Don't change your tagline on account of me. I chuckle every time I see it.One of your more intelligent posts. I was scared you liked this guy… I might even change my tagline now.
[quote=Ron 14]Lock EDJ - “My belief comes from some simple truths - Love your neighbor as yourself”
Unless they aren't American's ?... Should we not send any aid to Haiti because of the economic downturn. ...[/quote] Ron ... fair has nothing to do with anything. My comment was simply a response to your bombastic, antagonistic approach to Americans in saying we'd give more to other Americans than to foriegners. Meanwhile, we have the reputation of being the most generous nation on the face of the earth - not only as a nation, but as individuals. You're dead wrong on this issue. Dead wrong.You changed my initial post. In doing so you made the inference that it makes sense for American's to give a higher dollar amount of charitable funds to an American tragedy than an international tragedy that is 30 times more devastating. If that makes sense to you then you need help. If we are to love our neighbor as yourself, which I also believe, then in my world I should give $1500 to the red cross for the Haiti disaster if I gave $500 to the red cross for Katrina.
I think there's a big problem when a group of people (In this case, the American public) suddenly become expected to shell out dollars after a catastrophe in another country. Donations, fundamentally are dollars/goods given to others out of the goodness of your heart. I have a problem when suddenly I feel an obligation to give to all kinds of groups/causes and have a feeling of guilt if I don't. One week its the firefighters standing at the stop lights w/their donation boots, the next week we have the food drive going through our office building, the next week its the Girl Scouts selling cookies, the next week its a co-worker raising money for a Walk-a-Thon, etc.. When I give to these causes I'd like to think that the person receiving them genuinely appreciates it rather than expects it. I'm not saying that giving to Haiti isn't a good cause. I'm saying that if I don't give my $5 I don't want someone climbing my ass telling me to do my part because there are 50,000 other causes out there. If Obama is giving $100 million to Haiti and $0 to the American Cancer Association, and I have a father that has died of cancer, then I'll give you one guess as to where my priorities lie.I am definitely referring to public donations.
Yes. Exactly. And if that's the case, you believe as I questioned, that you should give based on the severity of the calamity. That because more people died somewhere, you see the need is greater. And hence, the value of their lives is greater. So it must be, if I have only $2000 to give I and chosen to give $1500 to the Haitians. Don't make the mistake of suggesting your decision makes a value judgement of people's lives any more so or less so than mine. You are "loving" the Haitian more than the Nolan. Do you not see this? And by the way, I could (easily) argue that Katrina devastated a far, far larger population than the tragedy in Haiti. Perhaps not to the same extent, but at the end of the day, Port au Prince was home to hundreds of thousands. The greater New Orleans area alone comprised millions.You changed my initial post. In doing so you made the inference that it makes sense for American’s to give a higher dollar amount of charitable funds to an American tragedy than an international tragedy that is 30 times more devastating. If that makes sense to you then you need help. If we are to love our neighbor as yourself, which I also believe, then in my world I should give $1500 to the red cross for the Haiti disaster if I gave $500 to the red cross for Katrina.
3rd- I have to admit, that is a solid argument. I do believe the media has a huge influence on where funds are directed because the more coverage the more people feel their heart strings pulled. I guess my anger, as usual, is directed at the media. They covered Katrina like it was the end of the world and one week from now Haiti will be an afterthought, but you will definitely know the local 7 eleven was robbed.
Lock - How am I placing a value on one life over another ? I am donating the same as a ratio of lives lost. It is a hypothetical. I would say an event that killed 100,000 people would generate a greater need for assistance than an event that killed 3,000 people. Also, New Orleans is in the USA where systems are in place to help. Haiti is not a stable area and there is no chance to rebuild without help from elsewhere.Yes. Exactly. And if that's the case, you believe as I questioned, that you should give based on the severity of the calamity. That because more people died somewhere, you see the need is greater. And hence, the value of their lives is greater. So it must be, if I have only $2000 to give I and chosen to give $1500 to the Haitians. Don't make the mistake of suggesting your decision makes a value judgement of people's lives any more so or less so than mine. You are "loving" the Haitian more than the Nolan. Do you not see this? And by the way, I could (easily) argue that Katrina devastated a far, far larger population than the tragedy in Haiti. Perhaps not to the same extent, but at the end of the day, Port au Prince was home to hundreds of thousands. The greater New Orleans area alone comprised millions.[/quote] Please do !!! New Orleans Metro area as of 2000 Census was 1.3million. Port Au Prince metro area 1.7million.[quote=Ron 14]You changed my initial post. In doing so you made the inference that it makes sense for American’s to give a higher dollar amount of charitable funds to an American tragedy than an international tragedy that is 30 times more devastating. If that makes sense to you then you need help. If we are to love our neighbor as yourself, which I also believe, then in my world I should give $1500 to the red cross for the Haiti disaster if I gave $500 to the red cross for Katrina.
I think this argument is not needed. Americans, as always, will lead the way in this tragedy. With their wallets, with our soldiers, with our backs.
It is the way of things. People may call our country selfish, but we give more than any other nation.
Update: Speaking of - our Rotary club has already raised $100,000 since yesterday (mainly from members). In addition, those who didn’t give monetarily, gave clothes and food. The firehouse in town is half full. I’m sure we’re not the only one.