Breaking News: Pat Robertson Says Something Extremely Offensive

[Florence]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/pat-robertson-atheist-women-were-likely-raped-and-thats-why-they-reject-jesus/

Why do we keep talking about him? Yes, I know I am being hypocritical here, since I'm sharing this link too... but why? What is it about Pat Robertson that makes anyone still care what he has to say? He's like that racist old guy in your family that gets drunk on Thanksgiving and starts using racial slurs. Why is America incapable of doing what the family does; ignoring the crazy old. I am quite convinced senility kicked in years ago for dear old Pat, but for some reason the media still keeps giving him a platform to make his sexist, racist, homophobic voice heard.

Is it the train wreck factor? Is it just because people like me will continue to stare slack-jawed, barely able to believe that someone actually thought that was something worth wasting oxygen to say? Is it because there are legitimately people out there who listen to these senile ramblings and think "Yep, man, Pat's got it. That is so true." As much as the first option makes me feel guilty for perpetuating this garbage, the second option is frankly terrifying. I know there are some terrible people out there (see: my last thread about Fred Phelps dying), but enough to support this old geezer's continued career?

Or is it a combination of the two? Is the problem that there are actually people out there that agree with him, and then people like me just pile on to the problem by staring like the man just lit his own head on fire.

I suppose if Honey Boo Boo has an audience, I shouldn't be surprised that Pat Robertson does too, but still...

Also, why is THIS PARTICULAR old person's offensive ramblings more tv-worthy than all the other old people out there who ramble about stupid crap?

[Sabby]

Also, why is THIS PARTICULAR old person's offensive ramblings more tv-worthy than all the other old people out there who ramble about stupid crap?

Because people know his name now, so headlines are more likely to grab you. "Pat Robertson says God allows rape to teach us rape is bad" is much more effective at luring readers then "Samuel Jones says God allows rape to teach us rape is bad" Who the hell is Sam Jones?

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I'm answering the question of "do people actually listen to him?" The answer is....Yes. I have an uncle that will listen to and agree with anything that someone Republican or communicating what are supposedly Republican 'ideas' says. He takes every word that Rush Limbaugh says as gospel. He will nod his head and agree and oft times go off on some tangent about some piece of propaganda that has no validity or can't be supported by any concrete evidence. When asked to site his source he shrugs a shoulder, closes his eyes and replies 'Joe Source'. He's not someone that wears a tinfoil hat, but he's about one step away from it.

I've been angered by his ignorance on some issues, like his often speeches about black helicopters and secret plans to put microchips in us all. But I've also learned to nod my head and just tune him out. Because no matter how many times I try to show him an article that debunks or says that whatever it is that he's terrified or angry about this time didn't become law or is just purely fiction he tells me how 'if they do it in California....'

It's frustrating and a bit scary there are individuals out there that will blindly follow or agree with whatever someone biased, racist, sexist or whatever else says. But unfortunately it happens. Not much can be done about it accept trying to inform them or tune them out.

[gaggedLouise]

more likely to grab you. "Pat Robertson says God allows rape to teach us rape is bad" is much more effective at luring readers (---)

Hell of a pick-up line, in a rather too literal sense. 

[Sabby]

Not actually a Pat quote, but I have heard those exact words before.

[Florence]

I'm answering the question of "do people actually listen to him?" The answer is....Yes. I have an uncle that will listen to and agree with anything that someone Republican or communicating what are supposedly Republican 'ideas' says. He takes every word that Rush Limbaugh says as gospel. He will nod his head and agree and oft times go off on some tangent about some piece of propaganda that has no validity or can't be supported by any concrete evidence. When asked to site his source he shrugs a shoulder, closes his eyes and replies 'Joe Source'. He's not someone that wears a tinfoil hat, but he's about one step away from it.

I've been angered by his ignorance on some issues, like his often speeches about black helicopters and secret plans to put microchips in us all. But I've also learned to nod my head and just tune him out. Because no matter how many times I try to show him an article that debunks or says that whatever it is that he's terrified or angry about this time didn't become law or is just purely fiction he tells me how 'if they do it in California....'

It's frustrating and a bit scary there are individuals out there that will blindly follow or agree with whatever someone biased, racist, sexist or whatever else says. But unfortunately it happens. Not much can be done about it accept trying to inform them or tune them out.

Ugh, I have to deal with my own mother. She's not... the worst. I mean, my aunt (her sister) is a lesbian, and the two of them seem to usually get along pretty well; so its not like my mom... ya know... 'hates' other people. She doesn't hate gay people, black people, middle-eastern people, etc... but she just has this... dated outlook on things.

She is seriously incapable of telling a story involving a black person without EXPLICITLY referring to them as as such. "So there's this black guy at work..." Regardless of whether their ethnicity has any actual baring on the story she's telling. She also has a habit, usually after a few drink, of making a point to try having a heart-to-heart with me about how one day the terrorists are going to come and try conquering America, and they're going to try to take away everything I love because they hate my freedom. I've... just leaned to nod and agree until she's done talking. She knows I don't agree with any of it.

Worst of all, she thinks Fox News is actually news.

How she managed to give birth to a pansexual, gender fluid, Buddhist, liberal is just one of those strange mysteries of life.

[Oniya]

Ugh, I have to deal with my own mother. She's not... the worst. I mean, my aunt (her sister) is a lesbian, and the two of them seem to usually get along pretty well; so its not like my mom... ya know... 'hates' other people. She doesn't hate gay people, black people, middle-eastern people, etc... but she just has this... dated outlook on things.

My mom once said 'I'm not prejudiced.  I just don't think blacks and whites should interact socially.'

Mind you, she got married in the 50's, when interracial couples were still illegal in the state of Virginia.  Even knowing this, I still gave her the 'WTF, Mom!?' look.

[Ephiral]

Why do people still pay attention to Pat Robertson? Because it makes them feel like good people without all the pain of actually being good people. Seriously, that's the bulk of it. As to why him in particular: He has a large audience of faithful adherents.

His audience listens to him talking about how horrible people who aren't members of their tribe are, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. Other people hear him being a horrible person, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. It's lowest-common-denominator morality - incredibly alluring and incredibly toxic (and at the base of a lot of what's wrong with both the southern Evangelical community and most responses to it).

[Kythia]

Why do people still pay attention to Pat Robertson? Because it makes them feel like good people without all the pain of actually being good people. Seriously, that's the bulk of it. As to why him in particular: He has a large audience of faithful adherents.

His audience listens to him talking about how horrible people who aren't members of their tribe are, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. Other people hear him being a horrible person, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. It's lowest-common-denominator morality - incredibly alluring and incredibly toxic (and at the base of a lot of what's wrong with both the southern Evangelical community and most responses to it).

Testify!

But yeah, I think this is spot on right there.  Pat Robertson is a bad person.  I disagree with Pat Robertson.  Therefore I'm a good person.  QED motherfuckers.

[Valthazar]

What is it about Pat Robertson that makes anyone still care what he has to say?

Pat Robertson is a crazy guy, but often times, I think he is genuinely trying to convey a legitimate Christian perspective, which just comes out in the most hurtful manner due to his outrageously offensive analogies.

A viewer apparently called in to ask why an atheist coworker was “openly hostile at the mere mention of God” when she tried to “bring her to Jesus.”  Pat Robertson replied with, “Maybe she had an abusing father, somebody who raped her and acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible,” the TV pastor continued. “You just never know what’s going on in somebody’s childhood.”

Clearly his comparisons are baseless, but in all fairness, I think his point is that a difficult childhood and other negative prior influences in one's upbringing might make them defensive towards welcoming God into their lives.

[Mathim]

I happen to have a penis and I am frankly very openly hostile to the mention of God too, especially when someone comes along trying to proselytize me against my will; I must have been raped, eh, Patty?

It's like the entire bible and history of Christianity just completely got relegated into people's blind spots. Stories of god ordering his chosen peoples to kill other tribes and leave alive only the young female virgins specifically for the purposes of rape should shut guys like Robertson right the hell up (given the inference that it's likely the followers of the good book would be the guilty parties of rape), yet you come at them with evidence of these kinds of atrocities from their most sacred of texts in order to debunk the ridiculousness of their position and they'll claim they're being taken out of context or that it's just 'old testament' stuff and that it doesn't apply anymore, as if that is any possible rational justification or excuse to ignore it.

Dogmatic belief is the definition of intolerance and intransigence. Of course people like Robertson are going to say these things, because anyone not like them is a sworn mortal enemy, what do they care if they make these accusations, however harmful and painful? We deserve it, that's very clear, according to that belief system. But there's only one solution, and it ain't gonna happen. Those on the business end of Robertson's serpentine tongue just have to suffer since we have no imaginary friend to ask, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" At least we're not expecting an answer and can't be disappointed when none comes.

Pat Robertson is a crazy guy, but often times, I think he is genuinely trying to convey a legitimate Christian perspective, which just comes out in the most hurtful manner due to his outrageously offensive analogies.

A viewer apparently called in to ask why an atheist coworker was “openly hostile at the mere mention of God” when she tried to “bring her to Jesus.”  Pat Robertson replied with, “Maybe she had an abusing father, somebody who raped her and acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible,” the TV pastor continued. “You just never know what’s going on in somebody’s childhood.”

Clearly his comparisons are baseless, but in all fairness, I think his point is that a difficult childhood and other negative prior influences in one's upbringing might make them defensive towards welcoming God into their lives.

Which is also completely baseless. Frankly a tough life/childhood has had the opposite effect on almost everyone I've ever met.

[Valthazar]

Which is also completely baseless. Frankly a tough life/childhood has had the opposite effect on almost everyone I've ever met.

I'm not saying I agree with him - I strongly disagree with him.  But just as you frankly suggest that it has has the opposite effect on everyone you have met, I believe Robertson has the right to espouse his views as well.

The manner in which he conveys that point is highly offensive, and his analogies are beyond ridiculous.  But the underlying message itself is something he is entitled to hold.

[gaggedLouise]

The most well-known "politicizing media evangelist" of Sweden, Rev. Ulf Ekman (who once studied in the USA under Kenneth Hagin - and before then was a fervent communist) recently became a convert to Roman Catholicism; he's been a charismatic pentecostalist for decades. I would totally love to read a conversation between him and Pat Robertson. 

[mj2002]

Why do we keep talking about him? Yes, I know I am being hypocritical here, since I'm sharing this link too... but why?

Well, why did you post this?

[Mathim]

This is why I didn't major in psychology; I can devote my entire life to studying why people believe and say these crazy nonsense things but I'll never find a resolution. We talk about them because they still amaze us even though this brand of lunacy is not by any means new. That's my theory.

[Florence]

Well, why did you post this?

Mostly to ask this question.

...

...

... ow, my head hurts, I can't go down this line of thinking anymore.

[Retribution]

It is similar to why people watch reality TV, look at car wrecks, you get the idea.

[Blythe]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/pat-robertson-atheist-women-were-likely-raped-and-thats-why-they-reject-jesus/

Why do we keep talking about him? Yes, I know I am being hypocritical here, since I'm sharing this link too... but why?

I think a better question is not so much "Why do we keep talking about him?" but "What is it about someone like this that is this compelling to so many people, whether we are discussing positive or negative opinions of them?"

Why do people still pay attention to Pat Robertson? Because it makes them feel like good people without all the pain of actually being good people. Seriously, that's the bulk of it. As to why him in particular: He has a large audience of faithful adherents.

His audience listens to him talking about how horrible people who aren't members of their tribe are, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. Other people hear him being a horrible person, and are comforted by the fact that they're not that bad, so they must be good people. It's lowest-common-denominator morality - incredibly alluring and incredibly toxic (and at the base of a lot of what's wrong with both the southern Evangelical community and most responses to it).

And this would be the answer to that second question. Because lowest-common-denominator morality is seductive in its relative easiness to pursue. It provides quick gratification and validation for those that need that sort of thing to "prove" they are good people without doing the actual work of being a good person.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I thought about this thread a bit and I realized that it's not just about Pat Robertson. It's about all the people out there that will blindly follow any individual that is part of a certain group, party, or spouting ideas that 'seem' to fit into whatever world they live in. My uncle tells anybody who doesn't automatically agree with him or get pissed off and raise a fist and join him in his rants that they're wrong. He hates anyone that isn't a republican and who doesn't think we should still be segregated.

There is no reason for that hate. Yet, reason won't work on those individuals.

It's just how some thongs are. Unfortunately.

[Ephiral]

I thought about this thread a bit and I realized that it's not just about Pat Robertson. It's about all the people out there that will blindly follow any individual that is part of a certain group, party, or spouting ideas that 'seem' to fit into whatever world they live in. My uncle tells anybody who doesn't automatically agree with him or get pissed off and raise a fist and join him in his rants that they're wrong. He hates anyone that isn't a republican and who doesn't think we should still be segregated.

There is no reason for that hate. Yet, reason won't work on those individuals.

It's just how some thongs are. Unfortunately.

That's a large part of it, yes, and it basically boils down to "We're still pretty damn close to monkeys, so we tend to form tribes instinctually." The problem is that the landscape has changed - the guys from the next village over aren't necessarily outsiders. So we look for new ways to define our tribal borders, and cling to them hard. In the southern Evangelical community of the last thirty or forty years, it's abortion, gays, and God, in roughly that order of priority. And, like the monkeys, we're both ruthless and vicious in rooting out any member who 'betrays' the tribe by crossing those boundaries.

[Kythia]

In the southern Evangelical community of the last thirty or forty years, it's abortion, gays, and God, in roughly that order of priority.

At the risk of going off topic, I read a fairly interesting article the other day limiting it to the low end of that 30 or 40 years you mention.  Haven't looked in to it any further, but it rings true to me.

[Valthazar]

My uncle tells anybody who doesn't automatically agree with him or get pissed off and raise a fist and join him in his rants that they're wrong. He hates anyone that isn't a republican and who doesn't think we should still be segregated.

I agree with you, but I think it is more noticeable when the individual or entity (such as Pat Robertson) represents views that go markedly against mainstream opinion.  There are equally as many on the other end of the political spectrum who turn a blind eye or express frustration to those expressing a more conservative perspective.

[Ephiral]

I agree with you, but I think it is more noticeable when the individual or entity (such as Pat Robertson) represents views that go markedly against mainstream opinion.  There are equally as many on the other end of the political spectrum who turn a blind eye or express frustration to those expressing a more conservative perspective.

I'll call bullshit on that one unless you've got a solid cite. Yes, there are people who do this on both sides of every conflict, particularly every political conflict, because politics is the mind-killer. But in the divide you're talking about, one side has built its entire public presentation around enabling, encouraging, and pandering to this mindset, and the other has not. Hence, this mindset will be much more prevalent on one side than the other.

[Valthazar]

I'll call bullshit on that one unless you've got a solid cite. Yes, there are people who do this on both sides of every conflict, particularly every political conflict, because politics is the mind-killer. But in the divide you're talking about, one side has built its entire public presentation around enabling, encouraging, and pandering to this mindset, and the other has not. Hence, this mindset will be much more prevalent on one side than the other.

I wasn't talking about any specific public figure, I was just speaking generally about people of all political persuasions.  One of the things I like about E is that people are respectful of differing political perspectives, but I have been on other forums where people simply ignore or become angry when someone expresses conservative viewpoints.  On that same token, there are many conservative forums, where people will ignore or become angry to more liberal viewpoints.  It is unhealthy and achieves nothing.

[Oniya]

I'll call bullshit on that one unless you've got a solid cite. Yes, there are people who do this on both sides of every conflict, particularly every political conflict, because politics is the mind-killer.

'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.'

Of course some people might call me a Marxist for saying that.