Pat Robertson Dead

SiegfriedSiegfried Shipmate Posts: 39
As always, when someone one has very strong opinions on dies, there is the mental struggle to refrain from rejoicing or taking pleasure. But at the same time, expounding on one's feelings about the departure still can help.
In this vein, Pat Robertson did more to discredit Christianity in the US than just about anyone else in the latter part of the 20th century. Some highlights of his statements that drove this are in the RIP post in All Saints. For me, I have some very personal reasons to have found him to be a negative influence.
In the mid-70s, my father began watching 700 Club. Prior to this, he has been a middle-of-the-road Presbyterian, who felt that politics and religion shouldn't mix outside of one's own casting of votes. That all changed as he became more and more pulled into Pat Robertson's judgmental, Christofascist teachings and statements. It led him to get involved with a small group of charismatics in our congregation, which is where he got the "word of instruction that he should move our entirely family to Southern California so he could go to seminary at Melodyland (which was NEVER accredited). He started getting into things like "Seed Faith", an early iteration of the prosperity gospel heresy. He started finding the "work of the devil" in popular literature (he convinced my siblings and I to burn a copy of the Wizard of Oz (book), barred us from attending Halloween parties and trick or treating, started giving large amounts of money to the 700 Club and other similar groups. As I grew into my teens and started reading and learning on my own, it drove a wedge between us, as I came to be a firm believer in principles such as the separation of Church and State. This rift never really went away.
There are perhaps some good things Mr. Robertson did. I can't think of any offhand. All I can console myself with at this point is that he probably had a rather uncomfortable conversation when he met his Maker.

Comments

  • KyzylKyzyl Shipmate
    To paraphrase Bette Davis..."You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good . . . Joan Crawford Pat Robertson is dead. Good."
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    It is hard to refrain. He was such a horrible person.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    For those who are interested here is a capsule biography of Marion "Pat" Robertson. It includes a lot of horrifying stuff, as you would expect.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    In the mid-1990s, Harvey Cox gave a guest-lecture at Robertson's Regent University, and used that experience as the basis for an Atlantic article about schismatic tendencies on the Religious Right.

    Robertson was even-handed in his portrayal of Regent(I mean, they HAD given him an invitation), but also got into the controversy surrounding Robertson's then-recent book promoting disguised antisemitic conspiracy-theories. According to Cox, alot of the Regent staff he talked claimed that the problem was that Robertson had unreliable ghost-writers, a defense Cox found somewhat suspect.
  • My understanding was that Pat Robertson was the TV age version of that classic American stock character the snake-oil salesman.
  • It seems to me that if one were to pray for the repose of his soul it would be both an act of mercy and (fundie protestant that he was) piss him off no end. Win-win. :naughty:
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I didn't know much about him other than as a loony-fringe preacher, but he does seem to have been rather an unpleasant character.

    I don't imagine he would have cared for my opinion though: as a Piskie, in his eyes I'm the Antichrist. :confused:
  • It's sad to think that there will be many other Pat Robertsons springing up to replace him...Hydra's Heads come to mind...
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Good riddance
  • Gill HGill H Shipmate
    I wonder if St Peter has a Pride Month t-shirt?
  • Gill H wrote: »
    I wonder if St Peter has a Pride Month t-shirt?

    kinda equivalent to this...?

    https://www.pinterest.se/pin/385339311863588740/
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 2023
    :lol:

    As usual, Gary Larson hits the spot...

    BTW, we seem to be working on the assumption that Robertson has gone upstairs, whereas he may well have been sent direct to the boiler-room...
  • I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    This is a perfect time to paraphrase what Christopher Hitchens said about the death of Jerry Falwell:

    "If you gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox."
  • I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    I think it's ok to welcome an end to him doing harm. Obviously repentance and amendment of life would have been the preferable route but it's still welcome that his capacity to inflict further suffering is ended.
  • bassobasso Shipmate
    BTW, we seem to be working on the assumption that Robertson has gone upstairs, whereas he may well have been sent direct to the boiler-room...
    As a universalist, I'm sure that he has gone upstairs.

    His meeting with God will have been a bit of a shock to him.

    I liked this take on his reception.
  • I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    I think it's ok to welcome an end to him doing harm. Obviously repentance and amendment of life would have been the preferable route but it's still welcome that his capacity to inflict further suffering is ended.

    This.
    basso wrote: »
    BTW, we seem to be working on the assumption that Robertson has gone upstairs, whereas he may well have been sent direct to the boiler-room...
    As a universalist, I'm sure that he has gone upstairs.

    His meeting with God will have been a bit of a shock to him.

    I liked this take on his reception.

    Thanks for the cartoon! 🤣🤣

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    Very easy to say when you're not someone he campaigned for the death of.

    Personally I think he's just keeping Kissinger's seat in Hell warm for him.
  • All that smoke covering parts of the USA wasn't from Canadian wildfires at all - it was the gates of hell opening to welcome the new recruits.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    Very easy to say when you're not someone he campaigned for the death of..
    Yes it's easy to say and I don't excuse him but once you start glorifying or welcoming or finding satisfaction in someone's death, then when do you stop? Isn't it better to work to change opinions and beliefs by calling them out and taking appropriate action before death removes the possibility of any recompense down here?

  • Pomona wrote: »
    I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    Very easy to say when you're not someone he campaigned for the death of..
    Yes it's easy to say and I don't excuse him but once you start glorifying or welcoming or finding satisfaction in someone's death, then when do you stop? Isn't it better to work to change opinions and beliefs by calling them out and taking appropriate action before death removes the possibility of any recompense down here?
    People who’ve been oppressed and dehumanized—who it seems to me have very much been working to change opinion and beliefs by calling them out—feel how they feel about the death of one who has been at the forefront of their oppression. I’m not sure it’s the place of any of the rest of us to tell them how they should feel or to try to police their feelings. Psalm 137 comes to mind.

  • @ExclamationMark - exactly what *appropriate action* could, or should, have been taken to change Robertson's views?
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    Very easy to say when you're not someone he campaigned for the death of..
    Yes it's easy to say and I don't excuse him but once you start glorifying or welcoming or finding satisfaction in someone's death, then when do you stop? Isn't it better to work to change opinions and beliefs by calling them out and taking appropriate action before death removes the possibility of any recompense down here?

    People did try, and he was still busy criticising Black people in his 90s.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    Here's a relevant post I made in a thread about the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    One of the problems of having power, any kind of power, is that some people will dislike you for it. That's the nature of power. There's no way to hold it without harming someone's interests, either by action or inaction. As such there is always going to someone looking forward to the day when you no longer hold power, and the more power you have the more people will be looking forward to that day. This can get somewhat fraught when the power in question comes with a lifetime tenure, so "looking forward to the day when someone no longer holds power" is functionally the same as "looking forward to the day when someone dies".

    Pat Robertson held a great deal of power, both as a religious broadcaster and as a Republican political figure. (For some reason people don't often think of him as the latter, but he was at least as harmful as Lee Atwater, Paul Weyrich, Rush Limbaugh, or a number of non-elected but nonetheless influential Republican political figures.) The fact that he is no longer using that power to harm people is, for obvious reasons, a source of joy for the people he spent his life harming.
    Pomona wrote: »
    Very easy to say when you're not someone he campaigned for the death of..
    Yes it's easy to say and I don't excuse him but once you start glorifying or welcoming or finding satisfaction in someone's death, then when do you stop? Isn't it better to work to change opinions and beliefs by calling them out and taking appropriate action before death removes the possibility of any recompense down here?

    One of the ways "to work to change opinions and beliefs by calling them out and taking appropriate action" is by honestly describing the wrongs committed by evildoers, even if they're dead. Soft pedaling the evil committed by people just because they have recently died just convinces other evildoers that their own offenses will be posthumously whitewashed in the public's mind. Fred Clark has an interesting post on the duty of speaking ill of the dead, which he views through the lens of A Christmas Carol. The occasion was the then-recent death of David Koch, another one of those non-elected but incredibly influential Republican political figures.
    Finally, the last of the Spirits, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, whisks Ebenezer Scrooge off to the graveyard to confirm what he has suspected with growing dread: This was his death that prompted all those callous, indifferent remarks. He was, himself, going to die one day and the only emotion caused by that event would be “one of pleasure.”

    Dickens believed it was better — kinder perhaps — that the pleasure and relief brought about by the death of the wicked miser should be expressed in a “softened” form. But he does not disapprove of the indifference or even the sneering mockery expressed by the businessmen earlier. Dickens saw that as necessary.

    Speaking ill of the dead after a selfish, harmful life, Dickens saw, was essential because it was true and because it demonstrated to those still living such lives the urgency of their need for repentance. It was only because he was granted the grace of hearing the harsh words spoken about him after his own death that Ebenezer Scrooge found a path to redemption.

    This is not a minor point in Dickens’ story. And if you like that story — if you think it has anything meaningful to say or that it deserves to be retold as often as it is and deserves to be as widely beloved and respected as it is — then you have no business wringing your hands over the supposed “incivility” of speaking ill of the dead.

    The enforcers of a stunted “civility” fretted and lamented the relief and pleasure that greeted the recent deaths of Jeffrey Epstein and David Koch. Dickens knew that such civility was not merely dishonest, but dangerous. It invites moral hazard.

    Yes, David Koch may be “past relenting,” but Charles Koch is not. Time is running out for him as well, but he still has time enough to follow the example of Ebenezer Scrooge or Zacchaeus and transform his life.

    Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. Yet far less likely and far less possible if we all decide to discourage him from doing so by filling his ears with pleasant lies, reassuring him that his reputation will be restored in death. Pretending that he’s already heading toward a happy ending helps to ensure that he’ll never get there.

    I recommend reading the whole thing. It's not that long.
  • When people glory in being shits, what are their opponents supposed to do? The shits feel no shame for their shameful actions, so what? Do those on the sharp end of their actions, or the actions they praise, just stand there meekly waiting to be assaulted because they mustn't offend the feelings of poisonous bigots? Poisonous bigots are poisonous bigots, and very skilled in looking weak when they are in fact strong.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I know that he had some very disgusting and unpleasant ideas - and I disagreed with him at every turn and on all levels - but is it right to welcome his death?

    Here's a relevant post I made in a thread about the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    One of the problems of having power, any kind of power, is that some people will dislike you for it. That's the nature of power. There's no way to hold it without harming someone's interests, either by action or inaction. As such there is always going to someone looking forward to the day when you no longer hold power, and the more power you have the more people will be looking forward to that day. This can get somewhat fraught when the power in question comes with a lifetime tenure, so "looking forward to the day when someone no longer holds power" is functionally the same as "looking forward to the day when someone dies".

    Pat Robertson held a great deal of power, both as a religious broadcaster and as a Republican political figure. (For some reason people don't often think of him as the latter, but he was at least as harmful as Lee Atwater, Paul Weyrich, Rush Limbaugh, or a number of non-elected but nonetheless influential Republican political figures.) The fact that he is no longer using that power to harm people is, for obvious reasons, a source of joy for the people he spent his life harming.
    Pomona wrote: »
    Very easy to say when you're not someone he campaigned for the death of..
    Yes it's easy to say and I don't excuse him but once you start glorifying or welcoming or finding satisfaction in someone's death, then when do you stop? Isn't it better to work to change opinions and beliefs by calling them out and taking appropriate action before death removes the possibility of any recompense down here?

    One of the ways "to work to change opinions and beliefs by calling them out and taking appropriate action" is by honestly describing the wrongs committed by evildoers, even if they're dead. Soft pedaling the evil committed by people just because they have recently died just convinces other evildoers that their own offenses will be posthumously whitewashed in the public's mind. Fred Clark has an interesting post on the duty of speaking ill of the dead, which he views through the lens of A Christmas Carol. The occasion was the then-recent death of David Koch, another one of those non-elected but incredibly influential Republican political figures.
    Finally, the last of the Spirits, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, whisks Ebenezer Scrooge off to the graveyard to confirm what he has suspected with growing dread: This was his death that prompted all those callous, indifferent remarks. He was, himself, going to die one day and the only emotion caused by that event would be “one of pleasure.”

    Dickens believed it was better — kinder perhaps — that the pleasure and relief brought about by the death of the wicked miser should be expressed in a “softened” form. But he does not disapprove of the indifference or even the sneering mockery expressed by the businessmen earlier. Dickens saw that as necessary.

    Speaking ill of the dead after a selfish, harmful life, Dickens saw, was essential because it was true and because it demonstrated to those still living such lives the urgency of their need for repentance. It was only because he was granted the grace of hearing the harsh words spoken about him after his own death that Ebenezer Scrooge found a path to redemption.

    This is not a minor point in Dickens’ story. And if you like that story — if you think it has anything meaningful to say or that it deserves to be retold as often as it is and deserves to be as widely beloved and respected as it is — then you have no business wringing your hands over the supposed “incivility” of speaking ill of the dead.

    The enforcers of a stunted “civility” fretted and lamented the relief and pleasure that greeted the recent deaths of Jeffrey Epstein and David Koch. Dickens knew that such civility was not merely dishonest, but dangerous. It invites moral hazard.

    Yes, David Koch may be “past relenting,” but Charles Koch is not. Time is running out for him as well, but he still has time enough to follow the example of Ebenezer Scrooge or Zacchaeus and transform his life.

    Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. Yet far less likely and far less possible if we all decide to discourage him from doing so by filling his ears with pleasant lies, reassuring him that his reputation will be restored in death. Pretending that he’s already heading toward a happy ending helps to ensure that he’ll never get there.

    I recommend reading the whole thing. It's not that long.

    Thanks @Crœsos .

    Charles Dickens lived in this neck of the woods, and is often celebrated as a local lad, although I wonder how many people have actually read his works. He may be a bit prolix, but he often has something to say which is entirely relevant to today's world, over 150 years since his death.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    "Don't speak ill of the dead" is pretty vulnerable to an ad absurdum, with the godwinian variety working just as well as any.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Dickens was a man of his time. He wanted the poor to have better pay and better rights but he didn't want to change the overall order. In Hard Times the character who speaks with authorial emphasis is Stephen Blackpool. He is doesn't want the strike and lock out. Neither did Dickens.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Dickens was a man of his time. He wanted the poor to have better pay and better rights but he didn't want to change the overall order. In Hard Times the character who speaks with authorial emphasis is Stephen Blackpool. He is doesn't want the strike and lock out. Neither did Dickens.

    FWIW, I find Blackpool to be one of the least attractive of Dickens' heroes.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Because of Pat Robertson, Washington State switched from a caucus primary to a ballot primary. When he ran for president, I think the Republicans caucuses were the only ones to give him their delegates to the national convention (at the time it was winner take all). His campaign people did a real bang-up job of getting out his caucus vote. Someone by the name of Don learned from that experience. It was the way Donald pushed all the other candidates out in 2016.

    I am thinking along the lines of Shakespeare's Mark Anthony: 'Friends, Republicans, Countrymen, I have come to bury Robertson, not to praise him.'
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Except that Mark Anthony does in fact praise Caesar.
    Antony has been allowed by Brutus and the other conspirators to make a funeral oration for Caesar on condition that he will not blame them for Caesar's death; however, while Antony's speech outwardly begins by justifying the actions of Brutus and the assassins, Antony uses rhetoric and genuine reminders to ultimately portray Caesar in such a positive light that the crowd is enraged against the conspirators.
    Source
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    edited June 2023
    Tangent /

    The most amazing theatrical performance I have ever been privileged to watch was the RCS's 2012 Julius Caesar, with an all Black cast, set in modern day Africa. The absolute star of the show was the guy who played the rabble-raising Mark Anthony, repeating "these are honourable men" over and over until it lost all its meaning.

    He was phenomenal.

    /End tangent
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    It has been a while since I read the speech, I admit. I withdraw the last part of the previous comment.
  • I am happy to not refrain. He was a piece of shit.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 2023
    It may be wrong to welcome someone's death, but it's hard to refrain from at least wishing it on such dangerous and evil people as (say) Trump or Putin (others could no doubt be added to the list...).

    Reading in today's Guardian about the geopolitical dangers of a second Trump presidency, it occurred to me how much better off the world might be if Trump were no more. Other evils would inevitably follow - as Gandalf said, even Sauron was only an emissary.

    If that thought is sinful, I repent me of it.
  • Too late, the thought was thunk, as they usually are.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    It may be wrong to welcome someone's death, but it's hard to refrain from at least wishing it on such dangerous and evil people as (say) Trump or Putin (others could no doubt be added to the list...).

    Reading in today's Guardian about the geopolitical dangers of a second Trump presidency, it occurred to me how much better off the world might be if Trump were no more. Other evils would inevitably follow - as Gandalf said, even Sauron was only an emissary.

    If that thought is sinful, I repent me of it.

    I think you can go as far as saying that there are some people for whose death you'd not go into mourning, and Trump and Putin are 2 such.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    As someone who thought of himself as a good Christian surely Pat
    Robertson was looking forward to meeting God face to face. If so I'm happy he finally got what he wanted.
  • It's a case where the Orthodox view of God's love as a scourge seems appropriate.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2023
    A few memories of The 700 Club TV show, from the 90s to mid-2000s or so...

    Robertson and a British co-host praying for someone whose child was supposedly being harmed by Dungeons And Dragons.

    Robertson and an American female co-host doing commentary about a just-viewed report on the evils of pornography, with Robertson expressing incredulity that some women like the genre, and then tepidly asking his co-host if she did. The co-host seemed taken aback, and answered no.

    (That one I saw when it went viral on the internet, not while I was channel-surfing.)

    The end bit and the commentary for a report on two evangelical Christian guys, one straight, one gay, who went on a lecture tour debating the morality of homosexuality. From what I saw in both the report and the outro, both debaters were treated with about-equal respect.

    And probably the most historically significant thing I remember about Pat Robertson...

    As you might imagine, Robertson was in favour of invading Iraq. But it was reported in the press that, when meeting with GW Bush in the build-up, Robertson was incredulous at Bush's optimistic view of how it would all go, and thought himself obligated to state that there would be way more casualties than the president was predicting.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    It may be wrong to welcome someone's death, but it's hard to refrain from at least wishing it on such dangerous and evil people as (say) Trump or Putin (others could no doubt be added to the list...).

    Reading in today's Guardian about the geopolitical dangers of a second Trump presidency, it occurred to me how much better off the world might be if Trump were no more. Other evils would inevitably follow - as Gandalf said, even Sauron was only an emissary.

    If that thought is sinful, I repent me of it.

    I think you can go as far as saying that there are some people for whose death you'd not go into mourning, and Trump and Putin are 2 such.

    Yes, I'll go with that. Thanks.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    The obituaries for Glenda Jackson include the time when the Commons was recalled because Mrs Thatcher had died and Jackson was raked over the coals by the press for being honest about her opinions of Thatcher. Many of us cheered her for her honesty, which was so much more real than the fawning over the ghost of the woman.
  • In a way, it's sad that we are not to know what Ms Jackson thought of Trumpson and his Gang...or has this been recorded somewhere?
  • ETA:

    Here's her verdict on Thatcher (from today's Guardian article), which she could well have applied to today's government:

    Any ambitions she may have had for a lead role in government were banjaxed by her outspoken opposition to the Iraq war. Grandstanding opportunities were limited to occasions such as the death of Margaret Thatcher, when she cut through sentimental parliamentary etiquette with her own salty verdict on an ideology of “greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees”.

    My italics.
Sign In or Register to comment.