Pat Robertson is a big dope--Part 2

Overview

It must be a great deal to be able to define the power of God the way Pat Robertson does.

In the same interview with George Stephanopoulos in which he said the judiciary was a greater danger than "bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson was asked another question about the judiciary:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know reverend Robertson, the God you describe is taking a very active direct role in our lives. One of the earlier clips we showed, you had Him saying I am removing justices from the supreme court and I'm just wondering why does a God who is so involved in our daily life, so directly involved allow something like a tsunami to kill several hundred thousand people in Asia?

PAT ROBERTSON: I don't think He reverses the laws of nature. The reason for that tsunami was the shifting of tectonic plates in the Indian Ocean. I don't think He changes the magma in volcanoes and I don't think He changes the wind currents to bring about hurricanes, so I don't attribute that to God or His lack or otherwise, but in terms of human affairs I do think he answers prayer and I think there have been literally millions of people praying for a change in the Supreme Court. The people of faith in this country feel they're on a tyranny and they see their liberties taken away from them and they've been beseeching God, fasting and praying for years, so I think he hears and answers their prayers.

(emphasis added). I have at least three major problems with what Robertson said.

Robertson seems to be trying to limit the power of God.

So, Robertson says that God does not ever change the powers of nature, but does change "human affairs." As I stated in Some Christmas Eve thoughts, Jesus and the will of God, and More on Easter: unconventional views on the meaning of the Resurrection, a major part of my Christian faith is that anything and everything is possible with God. Although he does expressly say so, Robertson certainly implies that God simply has nothing to do with natural phenomena because He is concerned only with answering prayers that concern "human affairs."

Well, consider that some human group was about to inflict major damage on another human group, and the prospective victims all prayed for something to prevent the oppressors from carrying out their plans. That certainly involves "human affairs," right? Now consider that just prior to the oppressors putting their plans into action, some natural phenomenon--such as a major storm--occurs which does indeed prevent their actions.

Here's a simpler situation...Imagine that an area has been without rain for an extended period, and the crops which are needed to feed the people are on the verge of being ruined. Having food for survival certainly involves "human affairs," does it not? Now consider that the people pray for rain, and soon the rain comes in amounts that save the crops and ensure that the people will have food to survive.

According to Robertson, God would have had nothing to do with the natural phenomena which saved the two groups because God just doesn't do that sort of thing. Pursuant to my belief, God certainly can do that sort of thing, and I do not presume to know what God specifically chooses and why. Robertson, on the other hand, professes to know what powers and actions God can employ. In making such a declaration, Robertson is trying to place a limit not only on what constitutes "human affairs," but also on God's power. My faith holds that we humans do not have such authority.

Robertson is at best a flip-flopper.

Robertson now says that God does not effect changes in nature, but he said just the opposite in previous years. According to a June 10, 1998, article in the Virginian-Pilot, "In 1985, (Robertson) claimed that his prayers helped steer Hurricane Gloria away from Hampton Roads, and in 1995 he said the same about Hurricane Felix." Hurricane Gloria played a role in Robertson deciding to run for President in the 1988 election. As noted in Chapter 10 of a book by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, Robertson made the following prayer regarding Gloria on his TV show, "The 700 Club," on September 27, 1985:

In the name of Jesus, we command you to stop where you are and move northeast, away from land, and away from harm. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, we command it.

Robertson was "commanding" Gloria to avoid the broadcast facilities of his Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), and indeed, the hurricane changed course. Shortly thereafter Robertson declared his candidacy. Hadden and Shupe wrote that on June 11, 1986, "700 Club" co-host Denuta Soderman asked him about hurricane Gloria and his decision to run for office:

SODERMAN: How important was Hurricane Gloria in this crystallization process?

ROBERTSON: It was extremely important because I felt, interestingly enough, that if I couldn't move a hurricane, I could hardly move a nation. I know that's a strange thing for anybody to say, and there's hardly anyone else who would feel the same way, but it was very important to the faith of many people.

What I find even more interesting than Robertson's hypocrisy is the fact that he claims that he, not God, moved the hurricane.

Robertson's previous belief that God does take a direct role in nature was further seen in remarks he made on June 8, 1998, on "The 700 Club" regarding the city of Orlando deciding to fly rainbow flags in the city in recognition of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Robertson began by saying the apostle Paul warned about accepting homosexuality, and then he said the following (and this is the official version from CBN):

So if the United States wants to embrace "degrading passions"--according to the Bible, something the Bible says is an abomination against God--we're not in any way, shape or form hating anybody. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But if a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation; if it will bring about terrorist bombs; if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to. And I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you.

(emphasis added). Clearly, Robertson declared a belief that God might send a hurricane at Orlando. But eight days ago he said that God does not do such things because He does change the laws of nature.

What a hypoctrite.

Who are the "people of faith," and what liberties have been taken away from them?

I consider myself a person of faith, and even though I disagree with some decisions of the Supreme Court, I have a difficult time pinpointing how those decisions have taken away any of my liberties (as opposed to decisions and actions of the Texas Supreme Court), so I guess Robertson would not consider me a "person of faith." In fact, given that I am a United Methodist, I know Robertson considers me a heathen. On the June 14, 1991, edition of "The 700 Club" Robertson said

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.

On a lighter note, most of friends in high school were either Catholic or Baptist. In discussing religion, the only thing they could agree on was that since I was a Methodist, I was a heathen. :-)

In any event, I am certainly not one of Robertson's "people of faith." I can only assume that Robertson believes that "people of faith" are those that share his beliefs.

So, just what liberties have been taken away from them by the Supreme Court? They are not prohibited from practicing or publicly declaring their faith. Have any of them been put in jail for their faith? I'm going to going out on a limb and say "no." Have those lost any property rights? In what ways have the "people of faith" been singled out for punishment by the Supreme Court?

It seems to me that the Supreme Court's "oppression" is defined by Robertson as the Court's failure to enforce Robertson's beliefs. In other words, the Supreme Court's transgression is one of omission rather commission. And yet, the taking of something seems to me to require an act of commission. Listen up, Pat. Just because a group does not do what you want it to do does not mean it is taking anything from you.

And if you--not God--can move hurricanes, perhaps you would want the "people of faith" to start praying to you.