Rev. Pat Robertson often attributes horrific events to God’s wrath as when he explained that the 9-11 attacks and the Katrina disaster were punishments for our sins. Now, Robertson has proclaimed that the earthquake in Haiti was sent by God to punish Haitians for a “pact with the Devil” made to overthrow the French.
Robertson favors that Old Testament God filled with anger and wrathful impulses. On this occasion, in Robertson’s mind, God wanted to kill over 100,000 people because of something that some of their ancestors allegedly did. Makes perfect sense. Here is what the good Reverend said “happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it”:
You know, Christie, something happened a long time ago in Haiti. And the people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third or whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you get us free from the French. True story. And so, the Devil said, Ok, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another — desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God, that out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come, but right now we’re helping the suffering people — and the suffering is unimaginable.
He may be taking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reference to “Biblical damage” a bit too literally. However, President Obama seem to be offering a rebuttal by promising the Haitians that they “will not be forsaken.”
Native Haitians defeated French colonists in 1804 and declared independence. If only they had stayed virtual slaves under French rule, God would have been pleased and they would have been earthquake free.
This is line in with Robertson’s prior explanations of God’s wrath in terms of killing people in New Orleans and New York as God’s way of “vomiting” us out:
My only question is why we want to spend eternity with God if he is this horrible being filled with rage and wrath who speaks to guys like Pat Robertson? Isn’t God supposed to be better than us? Even my four-year-old does not hope that her classmates are wiped out in earthquakes when she is mad at them. If this were true, God would be in serious need for intense therapy over his anger issues and violent disposition. It is a bit hard to imagine Jesus saying “serve’s em right, Pop, for that stuff that their ancestors did over two hundred years ago.”
By the way, I missed that history lesson about how all of the Haitians swore a pact with the Devil. There are sacrificial and voodoo practices certainly on that island, but I was unaware that the whole revolution was one big Satanic movement.
There is no such “true story” about a nationwide pact with the devil. There were various revolutions by people like Padrejean in 1676 and François Mackandal in 1757. Robertson seems to be referring to Dutty Boukman who helped led the uprising in August 1791. He was a houngan, or Haitian priest, who held a traditional ceremony in which a pig (symbolizing the power of nature) was sacrificed and an oath administered to the fighters to be fearless in battle. However, accounts of his words notably omit Robertson’s alleged pact:
h! Eh! Bomba! Heu! Heu!
Canga, bafio té!
Canga, mouné de lé!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, li!We swear to destroy the whites
and all they possess.
Let us die rather than fail
to keep this vow.
Indeed accounts have him referring to God not Satan for some old-fashioned wrathful justice (which would seem to appeal to Robertson:
“The god who created the sun which gives us light, who rouses the waves and rules the storm, though hidden in the clouds, he watches us. He sees all that the white man does. The god of the white man inspires him with crime, but our god calls upon us to do good works. Our god who is good to us orders us to revenge our wrongs. He will direct our arms and aid us. Throw away the symbol of the god of the whites who has so often caused us to weep, and listen to the voice of liberty, which speaks in the hearts of us all.”
For more on this oath, click here.
Of course, even if there was a pact with the Devil, God can really keep a grudge. Over two hundred years later, he kills over one hundred thousand people to teach their long-dead ancestors a lesson. I find that hard to believe, though I am warming to the idea of God sending Pat Robertson to punish us for our sins.
Notice how once you started to use the word troll you use it over and over again. Well you used the word s Global Warming and it had the same effect. Next time don’t use it as an analogy.
How do we know Stephen Pitt is your real name, why do you use a clown face, are you a clown? You sound like one.
“AY,
I’m sorry. Did you have something to add about the comments made by Pat Robertson?
If you look back to the reason for departure, you’ll notice that it was 30%er who brought global warming into the mix. I just defended my position.” Duh
Now you’re just lying duh.
That fallacy has already been exposed when I pointed out that I did not “bring it up” but instead simply used it as an analogy.
You trolls derailed the discussion by completely ignoring the point I was making on the historical Jesus and turning it into a discussion of global warming.
Now that I’ve informed you I will not further your discussion on global warming you like most neoconservative looney troll turn to outright lying.
“I don’t need a link mister troll. I read about that nonsense on media matters website when it came out. Now its been debunked all over the web.”
You could have just told me that you can’t find a link, or that a link to an impartial source has never been made available. That may be because the petition is not a sham, and 31,000 scientists have really signed it.
Well thats twice 30%er said he was done. Will there be a third.
The public is growing increasingly skeptical about the supposed crisis we face from human-caused global warming.
The drop off in public support for the idea that global warming is a fact mostly caused by human activity looks most pronounced in Canada. In November, 63% of Canadians supported global warming as a man-made phenomenon. By Dec. 23, that support had fallen 52%. Among Canadians, 13% are now not sure.A similar trend has been noted in the United States, where confidence in global warming theory has dropped to 46%, down from 49% in November — and down from 51% in July last year. In Britain, only 43% believe man-made global warming is a fact, down from 47% in November and from 55% in July. In all three countries, there are signs of growing skepticism.
I think there are many good and rational reasons for the dramatic decline in public belief in global warming hysteria. In no particular order, and without attempting to be comprehensive, they are:
Climategate: True, the scandal did not disprove global warming, but it shredded the myth that global warming scientists are objective investigators. Moreover, the clear intent of the global warming community’s top scientists to stifle heterodox thinking, exposed in the purloined e-mails, reveals a lack of faith in their ability to win the debate based on a full review of the scientific evidence.
Al Gore: Al Gore’s is the face of global warming, and that has profoundly hurt the cause. His many factual “exaggerations,” his refusal to debate–if you really think the world is coming to an end, you take on all comers in every possible venue–his hypocritical lifestyle, the fortune he has made off of global warming hysteria, his inability to answer non fawning questions on the few occasions they are asked, the clear propagandistic nature of his movie, his imperiousness, the queasy feeling that something is off in his personality, his ridiculous persona, all combine to undermine belief in a climate crisis among regular folk.
The Media’s Booster Mentality: The media’s credibility on this issue–among many others–is utterly shot because journalists have acted as boosters rather than skeptical reporters. People notice and tune out the increasingly shrill stories of the coming catastrophes of melted ice, dead polar bears, and planetary breakdown.
Ignored Inconvenient Truths: Climate changes. Five thousand years ago the Sahara was green and the San Francisco Bay was an inland valley. Temperatures were warmer circa 1000-14000, so warm that grapes grew in England and Iceland, and Greenland sustained farming communities. The Medieval warming period has been often ignored in the climate models, adding to the belief that “the scientists” are stacking the deck.
The Crisis is Always Years Away: The steady warming predicted by the climate models has not happened. Instead, over the last decade, temperatures have remained static, perhaps with a slight tick down. But, we are told, warming will begin again in ten years. As I pointed out in an earlier post, we have been told the end is about ten years away for almost ten years now. Eventually, such assertions come to seem akin to the deadbeat promising, “The check is in the mail.”
The Weather: Global warming proponents have used every heat wave and serious hurricane as evidence that the catastrophe was almost upon us. Then, when the weather became arctic, they sniffed that the ignorant masses just don’t understand the difference between climate and weather. There is a difference, but people understand weather: It is something they experience, touch, and feel. When the warming trend was clear, people tended to believe. Now that it isn’t, people don’t.
The Cure is Worse Than the Disease: People see that global warming alarmists want to raise their heating bills, increase the price of gasoline, dismantle entire industries, and give away tens of billions to developing nations, most of which, people suspect, will end up in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, the stated intent by the bureaucrats and technocrats to use global warming as a pretext to establish global governance–with themselves in charge–along with the statements by some alarmists extolling China’s tyrannical one child policy and their promotion of radical population control, leaves many preferring to face the risks of warming rather than be subjected to the policies supposedly needed to stop it.
The General Collapse of Authority: “Trust us, we’re the experts,” used to go a long way. No more. With the sciences clearly politicized, with ubiquitous corruption across the breadth and depth of the governing and intellectual classes–both liberal and conservative–people no longer believe what they are told.
Increasingly, the governing class seeks to push the governed where they don’t want to go. That works in autocratic societies. But we are still free. Unless the global warming alarmists change their ways, the public’s support for fighting “climate change” will continue to deflate like a tire punctured by a nail.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=e06924ca-91e0-4a18-8165-126656414605&p=1
In your case, you get the exception prize. You cannot win the GW argument. Over 95% of legitimate Scientists support GW. That number would be included in your sampling, I’m sure. Is that correct?
Please know it doesn’t matter how much trash science you and corporate toss at the facts, the worlds best scientific minds, including 35 Noble Prize recipients disagree. The Pentagon disagrees. You must have one helluva scientific background.
Have you a Science degree? If so, in what discipline, exactly?
By the way, I don’t mind toying with you a while, because its a wonderful way to reach others. So, you’re useful. I’m curious. Why do you use aliases, and not your real name? What could you be afraid of? Give us your real name, then I’ll have a further conversation with you.
AY,
I’m sorry. Did you have something to add about the comments made by Pat Robertson?
If you look back to the reason for departure, you’ll notice that it was 30%er who brought global warming into the mix. I just defended my position.
If green technology is so beneficial and will create so many wonderful jobs; what are you waiting for? Start your business. (That would require you going into business for yourself.)
What other great business opportunities and what other great jobs have needed a government mandate to make them great?
If you’re worried that little old me is going to stop you, you better start looking in another direction. You need to change the minds of 31,000 scientists first.
“The petition is a well known sham that was debunked”
Do you need prodding? Where’s the link to support your claim?” Duh
I don’t need a link mister troll. I read about that nonsense on media matters website when it came out. Now its been debunked all over the web.
But you’re not interested in a link. You’re interested in dragging this out endlessly so you can plaster the bottom of the thread with neoconservative anti global warming nonsense and lies.
Well have at it. Ain’t my blog.
I’m done wasting my time with a throwback like you. Just know that progress will steamroll either past or over the throwbacks like you. It always has.
It always will.
“What percent of scientists in America have a background in climatology”
No, its not that easy mister troll. You can’t just try to divert attention from the fact you produced a bogus petition funded by Exxon Oil and pushed by the GOP in that only 1 percent of the signers are climatologists.
It doesn’t matter what the percentage of the worlds scientists are climatologists. That’s your distraction.
What matters is what percentage of the worlds climatologists support global warming. And thats where the general consensus is as I pointed out originally. Your poll is a neoconservative lie and was discredited as soon as it came out.
Which identifies you as a neoconservative shill. Nothing more.
Duh,
Does it make life better for you that you have jacked this thread?
“1% of the signers have a background in climatology.”
What percent of scientists in America have a background in climatology?
Isn’t it a fact that there are a larger percentage of American climatologists who have signed the petition than there are the percentage of climatologists of the American scientists that support the claim of global warming?
Who cares who started the petition? I’m more interested in the fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed it.
“The petition is a well known sham that was debunked”
Do you need prodding? Where’s the link to support your claim?
Like I said. Progress will occur and the world will move forward in spite of the throwbacks like you.
It always has and always will regardless of your desperate attempts throughout the web where you go to legitimate blog threads about one topic and transform them into your pamphlet campaign of looney bin neoconservative talking points.
All we have to do to move forward into new green technologies and the massive job and wealth creation they will bring with them is to get past people like you.
“31,000 Scientists deny global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php
That’s a mighty big handfull.” – Duh
Yes it is. A might big handful of crap.
As most neoconservative trolls in blogs around the web produce so you too produce a bogus petition that was founded by the Exxon Oil Company via the George C Marshall institute.
The petition is a well known sham that was debunked shortly after it was produced via the big oil behind it and the fact that only 1% of the signers have a background in climatology.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about you too. I knew Bdaman was a troll. Now I know that you are one too.
31,000 Scientists deny global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php
That’s a mighty big handfull.
“Trolls in blogs actively trying to discredit global warming to retard technological growth are the antithesis of progression.”
Are they as bad as atheists?
“These are not the actions of reasonable people who wish to rationally discuss a topic”.
It looks like we were the ones who were willing to rationally discuss the topic, and you were the one who needed to resort to “These are the actions of either a paid or volunteer shill for the far right wing neoconservative looney bin. And yes, they are a looney bin.”
You lost as soon as you relied on partisan politics.
The rest of your diatribe is just a party line sales brochure. Are you going to create jobs like the stimulus bill did? How much will it cost, and how long will it take to pay for it? How much will the tax increase be?
Are you a government employee? Do you work for yourself, or do you suckle from the government teet? I work for myself, and I don’t have any government contracts.
And one more thing. The idea that we’re bankrupting the nation to explore and invest in green technologies is laughable.
First we print the money. When will people wake up and realize that? We decide how much we need. It only devalues our dollar internationally when we print our own money but we can offset that by investing that printed money into technologies that the entire world can use. America didn’t invent the airplane but we were the first ones to make one work and mass produce them. Same with the automobile. Our wealth as a nation has always stemmed from our innovation and technology and that innovation and technology has always been hampered by a vocal and active handful of naysayers who eventually the tide invariably sweeps over and progress occurs.
The money we “invest” in green technologies is guaranteed to produce a return on our investment for decades to come. Jobs, technology, schools and technical education, by products and supporting technologies, service industries, transportation and distribution, and on and on.
All we have to do is get past people like you.
“I agree.
No one is saying that green technology isn’t a good idea”
Ever hear the expression “if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem”?
You’re part of the problem.
Trolls in blogs actively trying to discredit global warming to retard technological growth are the antithesis of progression. Trying to dissuade people from accepting the science, suggesting that there is dissent by pointing to a few lone detractors who’s arguments have already been discredited, when clearly there is no dissent among the general scientific community.
These are not the actions of reasonable people who wish to rationally discuss a topic, as I first suspected you two to be during our on topic discussion of pious hypocrisy and religion. These are the actions of either a paid or volunteer shill for the far right wing neoconservative looney bin. And yes, they are a looney bin.
I’ll discuss any rational discussion with most people and I do not mind talking with trolls as long as they are reasonably civil (which you appear to be) and interesting. Not boring and nonsensical or worse, pushing nonsensical right wing talking points and agendas. Which is what you’re doing now.
Global warming is real. Get over it.
And so is the evolving human desire to improve our abilities to create energy with clean and renewable sources and technologies. Doing so in now way threatens mankind, or our children or theirs. In fact it ensures their future by creating new and ever growing fields of industry. Did you happen to be awake when the Personal Computer revolution occurred and created more jobs and industries than this countries seen in a century?
The green movement is guaranteed to produce job growth and industry like we’ve not seen in decades and will continue for decades to come. No one loses here except the big oil magnates for whom’s product our children our currently paying for with their blood in the middle east. Enough’s enough.
The time has come to sweep aside the throwbacks and impediments to progress that are standing in the way and those of you who spend your hours working to defeat that progress are anything but part of the solution.
Hence they are part of the problem and their 15 minutes are up.
“Going upside down into debt benefits no ones children.”
“[T]he notion of bankrupting ourselves to put in a windmill is laughable.”
I agree.
No one is saying that green technology isn’t a good idea. No one is suggesting that climate change isn’t something that needs to be explored. I (me, my personal opinion) suggest the we perfrom an independent investigation, using some well-regulated and accepted methods before we arrive at a conclusion that does include bankrupting our nation. We’re not exactly sitting on top of a gold mine, looking for a good place to spend our money.
I’m looking to promote the general welfare just as much as you are. I’m just approaching it from a different direction. I’m a measure twice, cut once kind of a guy.
I should just tell you to “nevermind”. You have already managed to convince yourself that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must have some kind of “evil motive”. I’ll never convince you otherwise.
…enter the throwback.
A BBC weather forecaster has suggested that the Met Office’s super-computer has a ‘warm bias’ which has stopped it predicting bitterly cold spells like the one we have just endured.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243846/Met-Office-accused-warm-bias-BBC-weatherman.html#ixzz0cuNvTdiz