That "Terrible Plague" May Be Donald Trump

On Monday during the legendary 700 Club, a co-host raised a question from a listener who asked

Pat, last week you were talking about COVID-19. You quoted Chronicles 7:14. How can God heal our land and forgive the sins when abortion and same-sex marriage are laws and many people are anti-Israel. Doesn't this prevent his healing and forgiveness?"

Co-host Pat Robertson responded

You know, I think you put your finger on something very important. You know the Bible says -- they turn from their wicked ways. They didn't get forgiven. They will turn from their wicked ways. And part of what we've done is turn. We are not turning when we have done terrible things. We have broken the covenant that God made with the mankind. We have violated his covenant. We have taken the life of the innocent, slaughtered them by the tens of millions. Children made in the image of God. And we have abused the poor. I mean, we've allowed this terrible plague to spread throughout our society. And it's a small wonder God would hold us guilty. But the answer is, you know, you confess your sins and forsake them. Then he heals the land. It's not before. You are right.

Even from a Christian perspective, this is demonstrably false or at best, starkly disingenuous.  As the video below explains, the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant described in Jeremiah 31:33 by the Old Testament prophet as

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The New Covenant has nothing to do with abortion which, according to Robertson, has "taken the life of the innocent, slaughtered them by the tens of millions." There is nothing anywhere in this entire chapter of Jeremiah, all 38 verses of it, about about abortion. Moreover, if God brought SARS-CoV-2 upon mankind or permitted its introduction in order to punish mankind for condoning reproductive freedom, the Lord has displayed very curious timing.

The Centers for Disease Control reported that the induced "abortions ratio per 1,000 live births" was at its highest in 1984, at 364. By 1996, it had dropped to 354, rose to 356 in 1987, and has fairly steadily declined since then.

It was 186 in 2016 and the Guttmacher Institute, with statistics through 2017, determined

The number of abortions fell by 196,000—a 19% decline from 1,058,000 abortions in 2011 to 862,000 abortions in 2017.

The abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44) fell by 20%, from 16.9 in 2011 to 13.5 in 2017.

The abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies ending in either abortion or live birth) fell 13%, from 21.2 in 2011 to 18.4 in 2017.

Worldwide, abortion has become considerably less common in developed nations while the trend in developing countries is mixed  Thus, the procedure has not suddenly burst upon the USA or upon the world. But what has defined the world in the past few years has been the triumph of despots (erroneously referred to as "populists"), including (but not limited to) Viktor Orban, Jair Balsonaro, and  Donald J. Trump.

Clearly, if God has inflicted the world with SARS-CoV-2, it is not because fetuses have "slaughtered.... by the tens of millions." Nearly as obviously, if God has taken this action, it is because of the likes of Donald Trump.

Of course, it is more likely that this plague emerged because of the complete disregard of health and human safety characterizing Communist China's evil regime, in itself headed by a dictatorwith lifetime tenure. The notion that God has wreaked terrible vengeance upon the world, or specifically upon the USA, because of abortion is belied by facts. Alas, facts are unlikely to change the opinion of  Pat Robertson or anyone who sees in a pandemic an opportunity to push his forced-birth ideology.

Share |

One Heck Of A Joke


Ken Ham, president of the Creation Museum believes the earth is cooling, or so it seems he does.  As Piers Morgan and Bill Nye discovered recently, Ham can be rather cryptic and elusive.

Not so with Pat Robertson (video below). Monday night, 29 Democratic Senators (31 from the caucus) pulled an all-nighter to make speeches on the floor highlighting the dangers of climate change. Two nights, voracious winds throughout the Washington area knocked out power to 50,000 residents and lights on the U.S. Capitol Dome went out until fixed 30 minutes later.

That provided fodder for Reverend Robertson, who commented "Do you think God has a sense of humor? "Well, I think he does. Let me tell you what happened. In the United States Capitol, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and the Democrats had an all night marathon advancing global warming. And they said we have to be in fear of global warming.”







The power outage did not affect the Democratic senators, but never mind. Perhaps God does have a sense of humor, given that

With Texas aflame from more than 8,000 wildfires brought on by extreme drought, a man who hopes to be the next president took pen in hand and went to work:

“Now, therefore, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.”

Then the governor prayed, publicly and often.  Alas, a rainless spring was followed by a rainless summer. July was the hottest month in recorded Texas history. Day after pitiless day, from Amarillo to Laredo, from Toadsuck to Twitty, folks  were greeted by a hot, white bowl overhead, triple-digit temperatures, and a slow death on the land.

In the four months since Perry’s request for divine intervention, his state has taken a dramatic turn for the worse.  Nearly all of Texas  is now in “extreme or exceptional” drought, as classified by federal meteorologists, the worst in Texas history.

Lakes have disappeared. Creeks are phantoms, the caked bottoms littered with rotting, dead fish.  Farmers cannot coax a kernel of grain from ground that looks like the skin of an aging elephant.

Timothy Egan, who wrote that in the opinion pages of The New York Times in August of 2011, is convinced there was no divine intervention in Texas in 2011 or presumably, in the District of Columbia, southern Maryland, and northern Virginia earlier this week.

But if God is laughing, as Robertson suggests, he must be really yukking it up... about January being the 9th consecutive month with the global monthly temperature among the ten highest for its respective month.  Or about 2013 being the 4th warmest year on record.  And about January having been the 347th consecutive month in which average temperatures were higher than the 20th century average.

Lots of laughs. Donald Trump, in early January, tweets "The very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice." God responds, as Robertson might see it, with "extreme drought" in California, record-breaking rain and rampant floods throughout England, and the hottest season ever in Australia.

Robertson would have to acknowledge God is laughing at us, if anyone held his feet to the fire.  Over the course of the past two weeks, the blog at Jim Wallis' Sojourners has taken on Ukraine, immigration reform, gender rights, the environment, capital punishment, racism, and gay rights. Especially gay rights.  There has been nothing, however, challenging Pat Robertson or anyone in the Christian right who, witnessing a period of unparalleled and undeniable warmth, say that God couldn't possibly allow it.

That has to be done, and by the "faith community."  Evidently, God is not protecting us against heat, drought, or devastating storms.  Either He is up to nothing good- by our criteria- or He's leaving it up to us.  It's one or the other, and the likes of Pat Robertson don't deserve a free pass.




Share |

As Pat Robertson Says?!

To viewers of the online debate (most of it, below) Tuesday night between Bill Nye, the Science Guy and Ken Ham, CEO of the Discovery Museum in Kentucky, Bill Nye clearly won.  But it matters not to the objectives of young-earth creationists  that Nye was the better debater nor that he proved- insofar as it can be proven, which it cannot- that the earth is older than 6,000-9,000 years.






Throughout, as Salon's Sean McElwee seems to understand, "Bill Nye would accept ambiguity and Ken Ham simply substituted ambiguity for absolute and uncompromising and entirely unfounded certainty."   Salon's Elizabeth Stoker captured the flavor of the encounter when she wrote

Nye referenced wide swaths of research on rocks, land forms, trees, and ice; Ham produced alternative explanations for some of Nye’s claims and not others, all the while roundly declaring that the past is essentially unknowable to us. From time to time, Ham refused to engage with Nye or the opposing side altogether; when presented with an audience question asking how he would respond to a hypothetical world in which evolution was proven to be true, Ham merely replied that such a thing could never happen.  

It would be easy enough here to call Ham’s intelligence into question and berate him for so thoroughly and publicly missing the point of a hypothetical. But this evasion was only one of many refusals of engagement, which calls into question why, if Ham is convinced of the shoddiness of evolutionary science, he would avoid delving into the particulars of its problems. Indeed, the two men talked past each other for the entire evening: if Ham were really crusading to reveal the utter bankruptcy of evolutionary science, why would he let that happen?  

The answer has to do with the category of project Ham’s activism falls under. It is not a scientific project, nor even one much related to knowledge of the natural world, scientific or not. Ham’s project is rather best understood as an ethical one. 

At one point in his speech, Ham produced a PowerPoint slide with two opposing columns. On the left, “man’s ideas” gave rise to moral relativism, which in turn tossed the concept of marriage into confusion, allowed for euthanasia, and encouraged abortion. On the right, “God’s word” gave rise to moral absolutes, which support biblical marriage, the sanctity of life, and the notion that human life begins at fertilization.  

Though this graphic contained no direct reference to evolution (it was subsumed under the evil heading of “man’s ideas”) it nonetheless explains most clearly why Ham is willing to challenge the idea so relentlessly and so publicly. Evolution, in Ham’s mind, provides for the possibility of a world without God, in which human beings are imbued with no special purpose. Alternatively, in the creationist frame, human beings are made, which means they are made for some things, rendering certain ethical practices superior and others inferior.  

This was not a faceoff between Bill Nye and Ken Ham or even between evolution and creationism. It was a debate between science and ethics. Salon's (is there a pattern here?) Natasha Lennard notes "From time to time, Ham refused to engage with Nye or the opposing side altogether" because the disagreement is not over science but "about whether or not goodness can be argued for outside a Biblical literalist framework."   Evangelical blogger Ezra Byer argues

...we do not play the game on their terms; we play on God’s terms. At the end of the day, we are not called to win debates or humiliate the wicked. We are responsible to present people with this simple question, What will you do with Jesus? 

As Christians, we love to get caught up in debates! I’ll admit it, I find them probably too enjoyable at times. But what Ken Ham showed us tonight is that sometimes the best way of winning a debate is not through burying your opponent. The best way to win is through doing what God has called you to do. And this is to prepare, present, and then step back and make much of Jesus and allow HIM to cause the true transformation. His message is always greater than ours anyways! 

With over a half million people watching over the Internet, Ham succeeded, as Byer notes, in part because "he raised huge awareness about Biblical Creationism on a mammoth scale."  Additionally, Byer credits Ham with having "articulated very well the inconsistencies in an old earth model while still trusting Jesus as Savior."

But that is not unlike crediting Gus Bradley with effectively coaching the NFL's Jacksonville Jaguars to a 4-12 record in 2013 after a year (with another head coach) at 2-12.  Bradley did a heck of a job, but had little to work with. So it was with Ham, yearning to prove that if one believes in Jesus as Savior, he/she must suspend all scientific reasoning and accept the young earth model.

That is a false premise, as indicated by Reverend (or televangelist, when I disagree with him) Pat Robertson (video below), whom the Raw Story reports

responded to the recent debate between Young Earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye, a.k.a. “The Science Guy,” by reiterating his disagreement with Ham’s form of creationism.

“Let’s face it,” Robertson said, “there was a Bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years.”

“There ain’t no way that’s possible,” he continued. “To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”

“Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

“We’ve got to be realistic,” he concluded, and admit “that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

Last November, Robertson raised the ire of Young Earth Creationists when he made similar statements. The hosts of “Creation Today,” Eric Hovind and Paul F. Taylor, attacked Robertson for claiming that dinosaurs could exist, because the world isn’t, in fact, only 6,000 years old.

“Pat Robertson is claiming, then, that 6,000 years comes from Ussher’s book and not the Bible,” Taylor said. “The point is, where did Ussher get his figure of 6,000 years?”

“Now, then, Pat Robertson,” he continued, “are you claiming the Bible is not [divinely] inspired when the Bible clearly tells us that the world is 6,000 years old?”

No, Paul Taylor, he is not.   And in the words of the proverb (not Proverbs), even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.

Share |

Comedy, American-Style


Pat Robertson, Bob Beckel: Quit while you're ahead.

Saturday Night Live's skit (video, below) featuring Jesus Christ, Tim Tebow, and the latter's Denver Broncos teammates understandably raised quite a few hackles.

If this had been a Muslim country and they had done that, and had Muhammad doing that stuff, you would have found bombs being thrown off!... We need more religious faith in our society. We’re losing our moral compass in our nation and this man has been placed in a unique position and I applaud him. God bless him.


Robertson was right (for the most part), initially. The freedom of expression allowed to be expressed about the U.S.A.'s dominant religion, Christianity, is not matched by a parallel tolerance in Muslim countries about Islam. Bombs may or may not have been set off- but as Theo Van Gogh tragically experienced, criticizing Islam in some quarters is vigorously discouraged.

But the 700 Club founder didn't stop there. After drawing attention to religious intolerance in Muslim countries (you know where this is heading, don't you?), Robertson added "we need more religous faith in our society."

Perhaps we do. But Robertson's example: "bombs being thrown off" if Muhammad had been caricatured in "a Muslim country" doesn't substantiate that view but, sadly, does the country.

Religious intolerance in some Muslim countries doesn't emanate from insufficient faith but from the religious fanaticism sometimes labeled "Islamofascism."

On GOP TV, Fox News consultant Bob Beckel remarked

First of all, it's despicable to display Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, like that on Saturday Night Live and they should be ashamed of themselves. And the fact that this keeps drawing attention to Tebow and Christianity and faith and Jesus and they make it into some sort of commercial operation ... there’s nothing funny about that.

Obviously (except to Beckel, it appears), Jesus Christ is not Lord and Savior to all Americans (not even to many people affiliated with Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, or Orthodox Christianity), but he is to many. More significant and less defensible, owing to Beckel's lack of irony (a trait shared with Robertson), is his criticism of SNL for deciding to "make it into some sort of commercial operation."

That is offensive (although funny, depending upon your taste in comedy). Unfortunately, however, it was not left to Comcast-owned NBC or Lorne Michaels to "make it into some sort of commercial operation." Tebow beat them to it. As seen in the videos way below, Tim Tebow made himself into a commercial operation- even before his surprising success in Denver.

Tim Tebow was not reticent about using his fame as a Christian, pro-life athlete to gain a contract to pimp for underwear, and the minds behind Saturday Night Live were not reticent to use their fame to present a skit expressing ideas which, if not couched in comedy, would have offended even more people. It's not what's done in some Muslim countries. But they do it here, and it's a "shame" that neither Pat Robertson nor Bob Beckel understands.













Share!

Call it conservative political correctness, hypocrisy, or deception.

On the heels of the endorsement by the National Right to Life Committee of Fred Thompson for the Repub nomination for President, Chris Matthews interviewed its executive director, David O'Steen. Here is the transcript (with the relevant question in italics):



On the heels of Senator Brownback‘s endorsement of John McCain and Pat Robertson‘s support of Rudy Giuliani, the National Right to Life Committee officially today threw its weight behind Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. Can Thompson be the candidate for the pro-life movement and social conservatives generally?

David O‘Steen is the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Thank you, sir.

Why did you pick Fred Thompson, rather than John McCain, who is a real lifelong pro-lifer?

DAVID O‘STEEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE:

Well, we examined three things, the candidate‘s position, the candidate‘s record, and their electability.

And, quite frankly, Senator Thompson scored on all three. He has got a strong pro-life stand on the issues. He‘s committed to appointing the kind of judges that would reverse Roe v. Wade, judges that will interpret the Constitution according to their text.

He‘s voted right down the line on the issues, including—and his stand on embryonic stem cell research is very pro-life. He opposes the kind of research that would require killing human embryos and supports the kind of research that is producing cures now and wouldn‘t harm anyone. And he‘s got a record...

MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stand—but what about his opposition—he was doing—he said this on “Meet the Press” recently, very recently—that he opposes passing a constitutional amendment, amending the Constitution to basically outlaw—let‘s take a look at what he said about the amendment to ban abortion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “MEET THE PRESS”)

TIM RUSSERT, NBC WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?

FRED THOMPSON, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No.

RUSSERT: You would not?

THOMPSON: No.

I have always—and that‘s been my position the entire time I have been in politics. I thought Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response particularly to Roe vs. Wade because of that.

Before Roe vs. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. To have an amendment compelling, going back even further than pre-Roe vs. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do think would be the way to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: But doesn‘t—Mr. O‘Steen, doesn‘t a right-to-lifer believe in outlawing abortion, period, not leaving it up to the states, like states‘ rights?

O‘STEEN: Well, of course, what—first, let me—I will point out, Fred Thompson has clarified it. He wouldn‘t try to change the Republican platform.

But no one can promise a human life amendment in the next term of—the next presidential term. It would take a change of 25 to 30 votes in the United States Senate. And that‘s not going to happen.

The human life amendment has been a goal of the right-to-life amendment, but it‘s a tool. It‘s a tool to protect unborn children. What we‘re trying to really do is protect unborn children.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

O‘STEEN: And that‘s going to be done first by reversing Roe v. Wade, by getting the kind of judges that Fred Thompson will appoint. Now, having...

MATTHEWS: What is your ultimate goal? Your ultimate goal, though, as a right-to-life organization is to outlaw abortion in America, isn‘t it?

O‘STEEN: Our ultimate goal is to pass laws to protect unborn children.

But, remember, with a human life amendment or reversing through the court, it‘s going to take enabling state legislation.

You know, Fred Thompson voted in the Senate against a resolution praising Roe vs. Wade. He voted against a sense of the Senate resolution. His support to overturn Roe vs. Wade is clear. He‘s been there. He knows that life begins at conception. He has stated that. He opposes abortion.

Remember, also, he‘s a conservative. He‘s a federalist. And, of course, we have a federal system of government. And, when he states that people in the states and people, through their legislatures, can pass laws he disagrees with—and notice he said he disagrees with—that‘s just our system of government. But he‘s a pro-lifer. He wants to see pro-life laws passed. And he worked hard in the Senate...

MATTHEWS: What about—what about Romney? Romney says he‘s a pro-lifer. McCain is a pro-lifer.

Let me ask you about Romney, who is—who is doing so well in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. He may well be the early front-runner when we start actually voting in this country. Would you support him if he were to win the nomination?

O‘STEEN: I don‘t want to get into hypotheticals, because I believe Fred Thompson will win the nomination.

But let me say this about the early states. And Fred Thompson is positioned well to win in states like South Carolina and Nevada. With the compressed primary schedule and essentially a mini national primary February 5, it‘s not clear how—how those early states are going to play in this.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I have always wondered something about...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I have always wondered something about the pro-life movement. If—if you believe that killing—well, killing a fetus or killing an unborn child is—is murder, why don‘t you bring murder charge or seek a murder penalty against a woman who has an abortion? Why do you let her off, if you really believe it‘s murder?

O‘STEEN: We have never sought criminal penalties against a woman.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

O‘STEEN: There haven‘t been criminal penalties against a woman.

MATTHEWS: Well, why not?

O‘STEEN: Well, you don‘t know the circumstances and how she‘s been forced into this. And that‘s...

MATTHEWS: Forced into it?

(CROSSTALK)

O‘STEEN: ... to be effective.

We‘re out—we‘re not out—we‘re out to try to protect unborn children.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: See, this is where the hypocrisy comes in, sir. If it‘s wrong to have an abortion, why don‘t you criminalize it?

(CROSSTALK)

O‘STEEN: I don‘t think that‘s the way you‘re going to protect unborn children.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But, if you say it‘s murder, why don‘t you act on that?

O‘STEEN: I think civil—I think civil penalties, aiming at the doctors, taking away their financial incentives. We‘re after what works to protect unborn children. And that‘s the goal.

MATTHEWS: But the problem with all the states‘ rights is, you just go to the next state. And, if you outlaw it in America, you just go to Canada or Mexico or Dominican Republic.

Unless you penalize the person who has an abortion, I don‘t see how you actually stop somebody from having one.

O‘STEEN: Well, I—I‘m not—we have never sought criminal penalties against a woman.

I think it‘s much—far more effective to take away the financial incentive of the abortion doctors that are doing this for profit and for money. And we are—and our goal, remember, is to protect unborn children and to do what will work.

And it is a fact we have a federal system of government, yes.

MATTHEWS: Right.

O‘STEEN: Yes, we‘re going to work for laws in all of the states. And we will overturn Roe v. Wade. And Fred Thompson would help do that.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that abortion is murder?

O‘STEEN: I believe it‘s the killing of a human being. Murder is a technical term. And right now, unfortunately, it‘s legal. But it‘s the killing of a human being.

MATTHEWS: But you do believe it‘s murder?

O‘STEEN: I believe it‘s the killing of a human being, that‘s the term.

MATTHEWS: It just seems like you make a basic political judgment that would blame the doctor, when, in fact, these doctors don‘t go door to door offering people abortion services. The person who wants the abortion goes to a doctor and has the procedure done by the doctor. Yet you put the onus on the doctor. It just seems to be the strangest way to enforce a law.

O‘STEEN: Remember, that‘s where the financial incentive is, and the physician knows what they‘re doing. How many women have been told this is a blob of tissue? This isn‘t really a human life? How are they pressured by men that want to escape their responsibilities, perhaps? What about a young girl that‘s been impregnated by a male, where it‘s a case of statutory rape?

But the abortion doctor knows exactly what they‘re doing. They‘re taking a human life. And you will see Roe v. Wade reversed and you‘ll see respect for human life restored. And Fred Thompson will help do that.

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much for coming on this show, David O‘Steen of the National Right to Life Committee. Up next, Rudy Giuliani is still leading in the big states. But who is in the best position to catch him? The round table is coming up next. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC



Matthews asks why the pro-life movement does not seek prosecution of the woman if abortion is considered murder. O'Steen ultimately replies it's "far more effective to take away the financial incentive of the abortion doctors that are doing this for profit and for money." But, as Matthews notes, "these doctors don't go door to door offering abortion services. The person who wants the abortion goes to a doctor and has the procedure done by a doctor." Yet O'Steen, and some other anti-abortion rights activists want to exonerate the individual offering payment for (what has been deemed) murder and deter the doctor (which, ironically, would reduce the supply of providers, thereby increasing the asking price and the profit of the doctor providing the service).

It may be political correctness, a victim mentality the right often claims to be offended by, or a soft-on-crime impulse. Perhaps it's deceit, members of the movement really believing that abortion is not killing, hence no need to prosecute the person offering a contract. Or perhaps, as Matthews says, "this is where the hypocrisy comes in, sir."