As a commenter noted over at Carlos's blog, Christianity Today has as it's lead story the fact that a Christian singer I have never heard of is getting divorced. I couldn't find Pat Robertson's hit anywhere on the page.
Bruce and Bootleg Blogger weighed in on my last post on this blowhard (have I mentioned that Pat Robertson's head is really, really big?). They are pessimistic that anything will happen. I agree. Even lower ratings will just mean, as BB put it, that he is being persecuted. Conservative Christians love fake persecution, and so will probably rally to his side no matter what ridiculous things he says. Remember, this isn't the first. He has said that feminism wants women to kill their babies and become lesbians. He has taken credit for moving hurricanes around! He has said that gays and lesbians and liberals were responsible for 9-11. He has prayed for vacancies on the Supreme Court!
Why is anyone surprised and why haven't people turned on this asshole before?
13 comments:
This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about recently. "Christian journalism" means ignoring the wrongs of the religious. These people don't care about the truth. They care about pushing an ideology.
I share your outrage over Robertson's statement (as well as his theocratic leanings), but I think this story is getting plenty of coverage. It's all over the place.
True enough, anewanglican. But it's in the "secular" press. Why is the "Christian" media ignoring it? Are we really to believe that Jaci Velasquez's divorce is more important than a prominent evangelical Christian leader calling for a political leader's assassination? Why should I take Christianity Today seriously if they can't call a spade a spade?
I agree Kevin. This is one of those situations where Christians are really the only ones who can do anything here. Robertson's lemming followers tend to take liberal criticism as a badge of honor. Time for the grownups to speak out.
Please be assured that there are many of us who are trying our best to be disciples of Christ and are outraged by Robertson's comments. He doesn't speak for all Christians.
JMG, I agree completely. Anglican always chides me (correctly) when I lump the religious right in with all of Christianity. I know there are a lot of very earnest and serious believers out there who, like me, like SOF, like Anglican and Bootleg Blogger, believe that the Religious Right does not represent our faith. My concern is with the numbers of conservative evangelicals who stay silent, because, while they might not like Robertson, they see him as a "bible believing" christian, or a defender of the faith. Just as I see many christians who ignore how Bush violates their faith because they some how have tied their faith to him. Time for that to change. Time for conservative evangelicals to really examine their faith.
Time for conservative evangelicals to really examine their faith.
I agree, but do you really think many of them will?
In the interest of fairness, Christianity Today and World Magazine are both now calling Robertson on this. Good for them.
Yeah, and so did Al Mohler. My problem with his statement is that he acts like this is an anomaly--a mis-statement. Why is it ok when Robertson prays to the God of humanity for his own political agenda to be done to the supreme court?
This is going to sound like the religious right can't do anything right in my book, but this isn't strong enough. In fact, I would say that I think that this is the least they can do.
I know, the guy is seriously cracked. And I know so many Christians who idolize him. Creepy.
Why haven't we turned on Pat before? Seriously? You couldn't bother to search to see if we'd said anything about him? Come on. Not only have we covered Pat's troubles ad nauseum, but we have talked about things that no one else has. Including your blog, Streak.
--Ted Olsen, Christianity Today (www.christianitytoday.com/ctmag/)
I am not sure if this is the real Ted Olsen, but the point is well made. I can certainly concede that CT has done more than others in criticizing Robertson. Perhaps my frustration is about how many people seem to still follow him.
In addition, my comment preceding this one, was really about Al Mohler and his ilk. Mohler even suggested that this was some kind of anomaly instead of a pattern--which, I think CT recognizes of unChristian-like behavior. Likewise Ted Haggard's lame "he is part preacher, part pundit--this was the pundit part" lets Robertson off the hook.
If this really is Ted Olsen, thanks for coming by. I have some questions about some other CT approaches--in fact, I believe many of the readers here believe that the magazine has taken a pretty hard turn to the right. So, come back.
Last night, Jon Stewart commented on Ted Haggard's suggestion that Robertson was speaking as a "pundit" not a "preacher."
Stewart said something like: "So, Robertson was speaking during the time of the day when he's NOT a Christian?"
Brilliant.
kgp
Post a Comment