Mr. Robertson,

Not long after Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region, you suggested on your "700 Club" television program, that it just might be the wrath of God punishing a nation that had turned its back on him. That reckless and unbiblical comment (not to mention incredibly cruel and insensitive) resulted once again in you going back on the air to explain yourself and apologize (sort of).

Well, you've done it again. This time, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, critically ill and in seemingly constant surgery after a massive stroke, was your target. Do you ever learn? Do you ever think before you open your mouth? This time, you suggested his stroke was God's punishment for attempting to carve up sacred land. Rediculous. Outrageous. Mr. Sharon's stroke was more likely caused from his age (77) combined with his severe obesity (5'7" and over 300 lbs.), but you saw this man's terrible misfortune as an opportunity to spread more of your misguided theology.

Oh yes, you went back on TV and tried to perform more damage control (something you should be getting pretty good at by now) but the damage had already been done. You got out the real message you wanted to convey. Shame on you. You give "Christianity" a black eye. Thank goodness, the majority of Christians in this country and around the world do NOT subscribe to your brand of Christianity.

You're so quick to blame the "liberal news media" whenever one of your outrageous statements hit the airwaves. Let me (a lifelong Republican), suggest this has less to do with the political leanings of the press and everything to do with you speaking before you think. Maybe if you make your commentary fact based, biblically based and with more compassion, you'll spend less time publically retracting your statements. Because right now, you sir, have zero credibility.

Flame

Guess it's time for him to climb down off the podium ,take his Insure and shut up . He is getting mean .

He's the Michael Moore of the right.

He's the Michael Moore of the right.

Nah, he's more of the Jesse Jackson.
Remember that fiasco with the buses full of New Orleans workers who turned out to mostly not be from New Orleans?
Stupid stuff like that is more along the lines of what Robertson does when it comes to damage control. Moore is more of the kind of guy who gives people to make false conclusions.

Nah, he's more of the Jesse Jackson.
Remember that fiasco with the buses full of New Orleans workers who turned out to mostly not be from New Orleans?
Stupid stuff like that is more along the lines of what Robertson does when it comes to damage control. Moore is more of the kind of guy who gives people to make false conclusions.
I'll go with that - Jesse is probably a more apt comparison. Regardless, extremists of any stripe piss me off. Well, I'm extreme on some points myself, but at least I'm not utterly predicatable on what those points are.

I'll go with that - Jesse is probably a more apt comparison. Regardless, extremists of any stripe piss me off. Well, I'm extreme on some points myself, but at least I'm not utterly predicatable on what those points are.

I'll be honest. I dislike all three of them.
Moore for failing to provide making false suggestions. Jesse Jackson for his general BS and television-whoring. Robertson for the same reasons, really.
I know that I'm fairly extreme on certain issues, but unlike you, I think it's fairly predictable. I like to think I'm nowhere near as bad as these guys, but I don't think that my bias allows me to choose that for myself.

I agree with your assessment of yourself, though. Well, I don't think you're that extreme on any given issue, but you're not as predictable as people may think.

Regardless, extremists of any stripe piss me off. Well, I'm extreme on some points myself, but at least I'm not utterly predicatable on what those points are.

May I suggest this may not be the most consistent point you've made? I'm proud to be without doubt on certain issues in holding opinions that are uncompromised and immovable. That makes me an extremist in certain areas that have required much thought and consideration. By your admision, the points upon which you are extreme are more unpredictable and possibly whimsical without having a sound basis in reason.

How can the former be worse than the latter?

That makes me an extremist in certain areas that have required much thought and consideration. By your admision, the points upon which you are extreme are more unpredictable and possibly whimsical without having a sound basis in reason.

I think you read his statement wrong. I think that he means that the topics on which he is extreme are not predictable in that you cannot pigeon-hole him.

Pat Robertson was as dumbfounded as I was that General Sharon pulled out of the Gaza. He is genuinely concerned that Sharon was actually betraying Jews by doing this. Robertson sincerely believes in a living God who does punish, and that the Jews are His Chosen People. You'll find more than a few rabbis who concur, I'll bet, especially in this case.

To starkly isolate a few of his remarks, and ignore the body of his work, is unfair. Robertson is not a spiteful man, though he may be jingoistic at times. Plenty of American patriots feel slighted and angry about Chavez, and he has admitted he spoke irresponsibly.

Jack, the point is that it is outrageous for anyone to imply (there, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't outright intentional) that God punished America by sending Hurricane Katrina to destroy the Gulf Coast, or taking out his anger on Ariel Sharon by causing a massive stroke. It's untrue, and un-Christian.

Was it God punishing America on 9/11? Is it God creating all of the mudslides, wild fires, and earthquakes? Oh, and how about that mining tragedy in West Virginia? Those minors must have really upset God somehow. And let's not forget the thousands of infants that die each year. I'm sure they deserved God's wrath in some way. You get the point I'm making. Pat Robertson's public gaffes aren't isolated. He has a pattern of this type of thought and behavior behind his CBN microphone. It's irresponsible and outrageous.

I'm waiting now for Pat to come out and suggest Billy Graham has somehow angered God who then placed the plague of Parkinson's on Rev. Graham. Maybe Pat Robertson's God works that way. Not mine.

Flame

I think Pat knew what he said would get a lot of attention.

He's being a devil. It's his 1st amendment right. :|

Thanks, FL, that's exactly what I meant. There are too many people who automatically stake out a position on any given issue without giving it any critical thought simply because it's on a list of issues that folks on "their side" are expected to either support or oppose.

There are many who will defend Robertson because they're "supposed" to - simply because he's one of their own - an evangelical Christian - or whatever. Of course, there are those who legitimately agree with what he's said on this and the Katrina issue, and that's fine, but I strongly disagree with them, to say the least.

Sharon was struck down by old age and an obvious inability to put down a fork. If he was a younger man in the prime of his health, perhaps Robertson's comments wouldn't be quite so patently foolish. I've thought for years that Sharon was liable to keel over at any moment, God's wrathful hand aside. I'm rather amazed he made it this long considering his extreme obesity and age.

Thanks, FL, that's exactly what I meant.

I'll stand corrected - and my point was a bit off topic anyway. Maybe our paths will cross on a discussion on extremism another time:)

Incidentally, I'm with you on the futility of agreeing with someone just because theyre 'on our side'.

Thanks, FL, that's exactly what I meant. There are too many people who automatically stake out a position on any given issue without giving it any critical thought simply because it's on a list of issues that folks on "their side" are expected to either support or oppose.

I'll disagree here SYM. The lack of critical thought comes on both sides. The non-religionist has no foundation to build an argument against the view that Pat Robertson has chosen to take in his comments. There is nothing that should or does restrict Robertson from his antics.

There are many who will defend Robertson because they're "supposed" to - simply because he's one of their own - an evangelical Christian - or whatever. Of course, there are those who legitimately agree with what he's said on this and the Katrina issue, and that's fine, but I strongly disagree with them, to say the least.

There are also those who understood what was said was from a particular point of view. Some of those may choose to stand there for a variety of reasons.

Personally, I think jackboot hit the nail on the head regarding Robertsons beliefs. The possibility exists that Robertson does in fact believe every word he says as truth. It also stands to reason that he has not successfully articulated himself to the satisfaction of the public.

Sharon was struck down by old age and an obvious inability to put down a fork. If he was a younger man in the prime of his health, perhaps Robertson's comments wouldn't be quite so patently foolish. I've thought for years that Sharon was liable to keel over at any moment, God's wrathful hand aside. I'm rather amazed he made it this long considering his extreme obesity and age.

I would question Robertsons comments. What intent did Robertson have in saying such things? Who were the people he aimed such words at? Does he really care about being politicially correct?

All I am saying is that like anyone else, there is in fact a defense for the man.

All I am saying is that like anyone else, there is in fact a defense for the man.

Even if that "defense" is insanity. :D

By the way, I never indicated Robertson doesn't have the right to make his rediculous comments. Pat Robertson is covered under the First Ammendment as much as Michael Moore, or Jesse Jackson is (thought I'd cover each extreme here).

But, if he's going to make those reckless public statements, he'd better wear his flack jacket because there will be alot of folks like me exercising THEIR first ammendment rights too.

Flame

You really haven't said anything I disagree with, jojo. You're arguing against things I omitted saying as opposed to things I did say.

And, as FLAME said, Robertson and his followers really can't expect such comments to go without critism. That they may actually believe such tripe makes it worse, not better, in my opinion - but it is their right to say such things, no doubt about that. I wouldn't have it any other way.

For the record, I do understand that there is some "technical" foundation to be found in the Bible for their belief that God smited Sharon. But other evangelicals have pointed out other passages in the Bible to refute those arguments. Regardless, this atheist will leave those sorts of debates to Biblical scholars.