You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Pat Robertson warns Pa. town of disaster
2005-11-11
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.
"Y'know that big earthquake that hit Muzaffarabad? God sent that because I asked Him to. Now I've asked Him to kill you all."
All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" - the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power - as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
That tells me the good citizens of Dover want a school board, not a shura council. Too bad they can't vote the Rev. Pat out of office.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."
And Rev. Pat, if you suddenly devolve into a monkey, or some sort of primitive reptile, or a trilobite, don't come complaining to the citizens of Dover.
Eight families had sued the district, claiming the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Which I'd say it does...
The federal trial concluded days before Tuesday's election, but no ruling has been issued.
H.L. Menken is probably regretting he's dead, thereby being unable to cover the trial. It's probably just as well, since he's already used the term "homo boobicus" and he'd have to come up with a better zinger.
Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences."
Just ask Zarqawi.
"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."
If I was writing in the American Mercury covering Pat Robertson, the best I'd be able to come up with would be "arrogrant prick." That's why Menken was a better writer than I am.
Robertson made headlines this summer when he called on his daily show for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Pat's brand of Olde Tyme Religion™, on the other hand, is good for the soul. Once you've turned your brain off, that's all that's left.
Posted by:Fred

#18  Preachers have been predicting hellfire and damnation for,oh, two thousand years. And yeah, once a millenium the plagues strikes.

Does not mean they are wrong. Cause and effect with zero correlation. Preachers ain't statisticians.

See, if we had not gone after Saddam, we would not have created all the terrorists. NYT uses same technique all the time.
Posted by: john   2005-11-11 22:38  

#17  #5 2b wrote: Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences." people should send him money.

LOL. That is soooo true.
Posted by: cingold   2005-11-11 20:24  

#16  he speaks as much for me (as a christian) as Jesse or Al or Louis speak for all blacks.....
Posted by: Frank G   2005-11-11 18:48  

#15  I only wish he (Robertson) would realize it himself.

Sometimes even Preview doesn't help (when your multitasking...).
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-11-11 18:44  

#14  I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson doesn't speak for God.

I only with he (Robertson) would realize it himself.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-11-11 18:37  

#13  And the whole ID flurry misses the point entirely. If the only possible meaning to an event is the physical description of how it happened, then evolution (a description of a process) is adequate to describe human origin and nature. So the ID folks attack evolution, rather than attacking the hidden assumption that purpose==process.
Kids should learn a little elementary philosophy. I've tried to do this with my own kids: explain that just because you know all the steps in a procedure that doesn't mean you don't know what it means.
Pick up a rifle, point it at man, pull trigger. Are you an assassin, a man defending his home against attack, a soldier, or a member of a firing squad? The meaning of the action differs a bit.
I know that philosophers disagree about this point, but we never bother to tell our school kids that there is a question about purpose and meaning--we just let them absorb the unexamined notion that a physical description is all you need.
I wouldn't put this intro in a biology class--it should come a little earlier.

As for this story: I wish Robertson would become a Trappist. (vow of silence)
Posted by: James   2005-11-11 14:16  

#12  Brer:

No scientist worth his salt would ever consider scientific "theory" (whether it's evolution or quantum physics) to be "truth." Science describes physical phenomenon and the relationships amongst them. Science is not based on belief.

There is something called the "scientific method" that poses hypotheses and tests these hypotheses in the natural, observable world.

As new hypotheses emerge, they too are tested and the results of these tests add to or modify the underlying theory, making it more robust or sometimes more troublesome.

Such was the effect of Einstein on the field of physics a century ago. He upset the conventional wisdom of the day with his new way of thinking about physics. Over time, his views were tested and helped to reshape the entire discipline.

But belief in some "intelligent agent" cannot be tested. Belief in a creator cannot be tested. Belief in a designer cannot be tested.

That would be like Einstein saying "light moves because some intelligent force causes it to"

Such thinking gets critical scientific discourse absolutely nowhere.

I know you WANT to reconcile your beliefs with the scientific community. But good science doesn't care what the scientist WANTS. It only cares about observable phenomenon.

And belief, as strong as it is, is not observable.

By the way, the very fact that the world is nervous about bird flu is one very clear example of evolution in action. The strain of virus doesn't travel from human to human....yet. But because of natural selection, it is very likely to mutate into one that does.
Posted by: PlanetDan   2005-11-11 13:43  

#11  Brer Rabbit _ You can't prove a negative.

Besides, it's not science's job to prove gods don't exist, just how things work. If you want other people to act as though your particular god does exist, YOU have to prove he/she/it has some smack.

Posted by: Whinemp Flutch9261   2005-11-11 13:26  

#10  God is tolerant and loving, but....

I am intolerant, unloving and unlovable. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Posted by: Snaigum Cleamble8072   2005-11-11 13:22  

#9  BenDover, grab your ankles.
Posted by: Captain America   2005-11-11 12:59  

#8  A scientific theory is not a fact or truth. It can be likened to a religious belief. Evolution is a theory that has yet to be proven.

Science education should offer as many sides of a question as possible. Global warming comes to mind. I am not as eloquent as others. I refer you to an article by Fred Reed, http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm article #292 "Yet More Evolution" for a more middle of the road stance.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2005-11-11 12:13  

#7  Pat Robertson gives a bad name to those who think tha beleif in a higher power has no conflict with the process of evolution. He's just as bad as the nitwit Professor who didn't want anyone admitted to the Natural Sciences dept of a college that wasn't an athiest. A plague on both of them...
Posted by: BigEd   2005-11-11 11:35  

#6  uh, Brer:

Belief isn't science. Belief isn't a theory.

Heck, I personally believe cows think in Spanish. And they worry an awful lot. Prove me wrong.

Don't get me wrong. Religion is great. Fine. Fantastic, even. (Well, except when it tells you to hate everyone else and blow 'em up.) But religion ain't science.

So don't teach it in science class.
Posted by: PlanetDan   2005-11-11 11:13  

#5  Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences." people should send him money.
Posted by: 2b   2005-11-11 10:20  

#4  But what of the folks who "voted God TO KEEP IN your city"? Can Pat put a word in with God to make a highly selective disaster like wiping out only the first born sons of Egypt recall voters of Dover?
Posted by: ed   2005-11-11 10:04  

#3  Its also wrong to discount a theory just because it somehow ties back to a belief in a higher power. I don't think science has proven God doesn't exist.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2005-11-11 09:48  

#2  Look at meeeeeeeeee!
Posted by: Seafarious   2005-11-11 09:41  

#1  "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

...and my God is a VINDICTIVE God!
Posted by: Pat Robertson   2005-11-11 09:37  

00:00