Seriously, I love Pat Robertson. He makes stereotyping the Christian Right as a bunch of crazies so much easier. When folks like Orrin Hatch talk about morality, you know, I listen, because even when I don’t agree with him I respect his views (on morality, at least, not other things). But Pat Robertson… no. Not even in the slightest.
So when this press release, asking for God’s intervention in changing the Supreme Court, was picked up by the wire services and made it on CNN, I wasn’t surprised in the least.
Would you join with me and many others in crying out to our Lord to change the Court? If we fast and pray and earnestly seek God�s face, then He will hear our prayer and give us relief.
One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer, and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire? With their retirement and the appointment of conservative judges, a massive change in federal jurisprudence can take place.
In response, I’ve decided to start my own prayer campaign. So God, if you’re out there and you care and you feel the need to intercede directly in mortal affairs, how about alleviating some of the unimaginable suffering faced by so many in so much of the world? Maybe help feed a couple starving kids or something? If you really feel like doing something silly, how about giving the Cardinals a World Series title? That’d be nice, too.
I just hope, for Pat’s sake, that nothing happens to the justices that he’s targeted in this little prayer-off. If anything happens to them, the Feds are going to be all over his holy ass.
Pat Robertson is an asshole. Remember when he blamed 9/11 on gays and uppity women? Why, when we (justifiably) go ballistic on Muslim fundamentalists spreading messages of violence and hatred, do we tolerate the Christians who act analogously in our midst. Ususally, I’m in favor of tolerance in society - and I’m not against personal faith - but people like Robertson, who use faith as a self-righteous license to hate, drive me crazy. Grrrr.
Left by josh on July 15th, 2003
Josh - you really think that a Christian preacher’s praying for justices to retire and advocating governmental change through voting for like-minded individuals are “analogous” to the most extreme messages of Islamic fundamentalism? I’m also unaware of how Robertson’s comments can be construed as using “faith as a self-righteous licence to hate”. Shouldn’t religious leaders preach against actions their religion regards as immoral? I don’t believe religious law has been or should be subject to the democratic process. You’re certainly not required to agree with him, but he seems to be sincerely praying for societal change that his interpretation of his faith regards as positive.
Also, whether or not God is involved, I agree that a “massive change in federal jurisprudence” is needed.
Left by Dan on July 16th, 2003
The difference is in how the message will be acted upon. Were disaffected Christians in this country prone to using violence to carry out their leader’s wishes, then it would certainly be on par with the radical mullahs calling for a change in the world order.
If the same class of people that shoot abortion doctors decided to start taking potshots at Supreme Court justices, would it be terrorism and would Pat Robertson be seen as an inciting influence? I think it would be…
Left by John on July 16th, 2003
I don’t normally agree with Pat Robertson, and I certainly don’t agree with his entire press release (especially the part on God’s wrath against America). However, I don’t find the part that John quoted to be outrageous. I don’t read anywhere that he wants something bad to happen to these Justices. He simply wants them to retire. Retire, not die.
Nor do I read hatred into this. He hates the courts opinions, but I don’t think that he hated the Justices themselves.
I don’t think that wanting the conservative:liberal ratio to change in the USSC is wrong, nor hateful, nor self-righteous. If there were a liberal president in, you can bet the liberals would hope that Scalia would retire. They may keep their mouth shut about it, but I find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t be thinking it.
Left by Jaime on July 16th, 2003
I agree with Jaime on this one. I think that Robertson is probably frustrated and afraid, but probably not hating anyone.
What gets me is that if he were truly into Jesus’ teachings he would let go of these frustrations and fears and have faith that God is working things out according to His plan. This guy is some famous Christian teacher/leader, but he is just sowing fear and other badness into whomever his followers are. That doesn’t exactly crack me up, but I can see how it would be fun for someone who holds to perspective that is an opposite of mine.
I’m wondering what you thought about the begining of the his arguement in the press release. He argues that the Supremes act as a moral/legal oligarchy. (He also says that they are tyrranical, but I think that is a bit extreme considering the fact that everyone can still get away with praying wherever and to whomever they want, and because they are being more permissive than oppressive, which I do not relate to tyranny.) I feel that it is clear, historically, that the supreme court has gone before morality and helped to shape it in our nation.
I agree with his arguement about the Supremes acting as a legal oligarchy now, but the fact that they are also acting as a moral oligarchy is mainly due to the fact that the state fund education, and during our education we learn to accept state law and state tradition has having some high and absolute moral ground. I think a lot of people accept the teaching that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and then transfer it to meaning that the Constitution also has a high moral bearing — when it is really just a big contract between a bunch of people that has been handed down to everyone who is born here.
My point is… I know a lot of people that think that if something is legal, it is permissable and “alright”, and that quickly leads to the conclusion that it is moral — especially for people who have no other moral base. So, when the Supremes say it’s “alright” or it is “wrong” the peoples without a moral base come to conclude that it is “alright” or “wrong” too.
Left by David M on July 16th, 2003
My allegation that P. R. uses “faith as self-righteous license to hate” referred to his past (mis)behavior. When he blamed 9/11 on people who flouted the moral guidelines of evangelical Protestantism, he nurtured intolerance and hate towards those who failed to conform to his faith’s version of Moral Truth? Sure, Robertson doesn’t directly contribute to wanton violence like Bin-Laden or Saddam - but the combination of intolerance and righteousness that dominate his message endangers the core values of American liberal democracy that we fought those Middle Eastern baddies to protect. Personal liberties ought to be constrained by moral boundaries, but those boundaries cannot be drawn as narrowly as the cultural right sees fit.
Regarding the USSC, I admit that I would be the first to cheer if Scalia was replaced. However, I would be just as pleased if he was replaced by a true moderate as I would be if a bona fide liberal activist took his seat on the bench. I’m more interested in preventing the current rightward drift in federal jurisprudence than I am in seeing a Leftist Revolution.
Left by josh on July 17th, 2003
Josh: You are, of course, free to express your views on where the moral boundaries should be drawn - but it’s also Rev. Robertson’s job to expound on his religion’s views on the matter. To some degree, I think all religions are, and should be, intolerant: intolerant of activities that violate their religion’s dictates. It’s a pretty watered-down and weak religion that doesn’t hold its followers to any sort of heightened standard of behavior. Otherwise, what’s the point? As for righteousness, that’s also something I’d _hope_ religious leaders have.
Among those ‘core values of American liberal democracy’ that our military fights to protect are the freedoms of speech and religious expression. I fail to see how their exercise, absent any express or implied contribution to violence, endangers any of our core values. As is so commonly pointed out by the left, protest against governmental policy is an essential part of our political system. Would you consider left-wing protest participants to be ‘intolerant’ and endangering our core values or does that label only apply to those with views you don’t share?
Concerning the Supreme Court: Rightward drift in federal jurisprudence? This past term was highlighted by victories for a number of causes generally identified with the left. To the extent that the Court over the past ten years have been identified as drifting to the right, I’d say that it was moving closer to the ideological center after residing for 30-40 years far to the left of the general populace. As far as the current composition of the court, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens vote for the ‘left’ fairly consistantly. Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist often vote in line with the ‘right’. Leaving Kennedy and O’Connor as ‘moderates’ who more often vote left than right (other than in federalism cases). You said that you would be pleased with the replacement of Scalia with a ‘moderate’. Would a Court composed solely of ‘moderates’ and ‘liberal activists’ fairly rule on the law, in your view? Would the replacement of, say, Stevens with a ‘moderate’ constitute ‘rightward drift’?
Left by Dan on July 19th, 2003
From now on, I’m only posting neuroscience articles to WS, just so I can beat down on upstarts like Dan.
This may cast more light on how Pat Robertson may be percieved as, shall we say, not the most critical thinker in the world.
Left by Dave on July 19th, 2003
Clarification: From now on, I’m only posting neuroscience articles to WS, just so I can beat down on upstarts _like Dan does to others who step up to the “let’s talk law” plate_.
John, we need to put HTML enabled comments, for real.
Aforementioned article is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14¬Found=true
Left by Dave on July 19th, 2003
Dan, your caveat about “other than in federalism cases” is a bit disingenuous. Since much of the Supreme Court’s docket is filled with just such cases, the Court’s tendency to support the “New Federalism” seems her significant to us Lefties. The decisions in this past term have been less objectionable than in the past, but the rightward drift remains as long as the five “New Federalists” - Kennedy and O’Connor included - have their majority.
Left by josh on July 19th, 2003
Josh: The idea behind new federalism is simply that Congress doesn’t have the power to impose legislation on the states absent a specific grant of such power by the Constitution. I don’t know that there’s anything particularly ‘right’ or ‘left’ about the doctrine, other than the fact that the left appears to be more comfortable passing its agenda through legislation in Washington rather than in the various statehouses.
As for Kennedy and O’Connor, the former wrote the majority opinion in _Lawrence_, overturning Texas’s sodomy law, and the latter wrote the majority opinion in _Grutter_, upholding the use of race in admissions to U. Michigan’s law school. Regardless of your position on those two issues, I doubt most would characterize these opinions as ‘right wing’.
Additionally, I’d dispute that “much” of the Court’s docket is filled with federalism cases. This past term the Court heard 84 cases, only twelve of which dealt in any way with federalism. Of those twelve, several were decided on other grounds. Probably the most anticipated ‘federalism’ decision of the past term was _Hibbs_, in which the Court ruled 6-3 that Congress’s Family and Medical Leave Act *could* be applied to state employers. ( Let me give this link a shot: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/caseindex.html )
Finally (and more directly on the subject of Robertson’s ‘license to hate’), in rereading the link Dave posted above in comment 9, it looks like it was in fact *Jerry Falwell*, rather than Robertson who made the specific inflammatory comments about gays, abortionists, etc. and 9-11. Robertson’s agreement with the comments (at least from that particular article) seems limited to ‘we’re a sinful people and God allowed our enemies to strike us’.
Left by Dan on July 19th, 2003
I can’t believe someone is defending Pat Robertson.
Left by Pat on September 1st, 2005
Pat Robertson is an asshole. He is a living testimonial to the phrase religion has no damn place in government. Just remember guys, make your checks payable to the 700 club. Pat needs your money to spread his special brand of bullshit to the masses.
Left by John on January 2nd, 2007