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.
How many of these TV Evangelists do we have to catch sleeping with their neighbors wife, (or worse their kids), embezzling funds and condemning the very traits that they themselves possess (can you say Ted Haggard?) before we figure out they are no more religious than Bozo the clown?
They’re just paid entertainers and nothing more.
30%er,
According to my quick survey of dictionaries, the majority have some variation of the following (from Merriam Webster, emphasis mine):
1 a : one who PROFESSES belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Just because they don’t agree with your idea of what it means to be a Christian doesn’t mean they’re not Christian. Claiming otherwise is just an attempt to deny that your religion can be used to justify things you feel are bad.
So, let me ask you: Do you hate your Mother? Because it’s right there in Luke Jesus said that you need to hate your Mother or you can’t follow him. Or would you say that you need to read the rest of the context of the passage to correctly interpret what was meant?
“30%er,
I said, in response to rcampbell, that I had a problem with religion, because there are so many, and each one thinks they are 100% correct. You in turn said that Pat Robertson is not religious.
religious: : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity ”
And I stand by that statement too. He’s not religious. He’s not devoted to God. He’s not devoted to anything other than fooling saps into handing him their money.
Do you really need that explained?
30%er,
I said, in response to rcampbell, that I had a problem with religion, because there are so many, and each one thinks they are 100% correct. You in turn said that Pat Robertson is not religious.
religious: : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
Doesn’t say anywhere in there that you have to be Christian to be religious.
bdaman Robertson was a big supporter of Bush. It is easy to make that transition. Robertson thought Bush was divinely inspired.
An “interpretation” would be like trying to discern the meaning of the word Camel in Christ’s message on it being “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”.
That would be a valid question open for “interpretation”. Most preachers and clergy interpret it by basing it on a non existent “Eye of the Needle” gate that was supposedly in the wall of Jerusalem during the time of Christ. But given there is no such wall its clear that the word was mistranslated from the Greek “Kamilos” which means “rope”. Thus it was clear that he was referring to threading a needle, with a rope.
A logical conclusion.
But when we see simple, plain easy to understand instructions like “love one another” and “do unto others as you’d have done unto you” there is no question of “interpretation”.
That’s just the great fallacy that’s kept Christianity from being Christianity, ever since the days of Constantine.
AY
Make a statement get an education, what a great country. Now I know I’ve been accused of being a troll to hijacking threads but how did you go from Pat Robertson, Haiti, God and Religion to Bush, Cheney, Iran Contra and Scooter Libby all by the mention of cheerleader. Remember I’m slow and not the sharpest tool in the wood shed.
“You’re talking about personal interpretations of a thousands of year old translation of a translation written down a generation or so after the events it describes.”
No, I’m not talking about any “interpretations”. I’m talking about what is printed in the literal translation of the 4 gospels, which were passed on by the Hebrew Oral Tradition (which is more accurate than most newspapers today) and written down as early as 70AD, just 47 years after the death of Christ.
The oldest fallacy in the world with regards to Christianity is this politically correct way we have of speaking about it as if there’s all these “interpretations” of what it means.
Just how much “interpretation” does one require of Christ’s commandments to “love one another”, or even to “love your enemies”? What interpretation do you need for “do unto others as you’d have done unto yourself”?
Pretending there’s more than one way to interpret simple, easy to understand commandments is why we have over 2000 Christian denominations and growing.
And its why we have neoconservatives out there using the bible to sell gun worship, hatred of those not like you and war.
“Just because he doesn’t fit into your definition of a Christian does not mean he isn’t religious”
Lets see, how much more clear about this can I be?
Its’ not “my definition”.
A Christian is by definition someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
And the ONLY place you will find the teachings of Christ, is in the 4 gospels.
“And who decided that only the first four books of the New Testament were relevant?”
Well since they are the only four books in which he delivers his “new law”, where else would you suggest we look?
30%er
Just because he doesn’t fit into your definition of a Christian does not mean he isn’t religious. Muslims aren’t Christians either, but they are still religious.
30%er,
And who decided that only the first four books of the New Testament were relevant? (BTW the verse I quoted was from Luke, Jesus explicitly says you have to hate your Mother to follow him). I mean the whole thing’s the basis for Christian doctrine. You don’t get to limit Christianity to “those people who agree with my interpretation of the Bible” any more than other Christians do.
Now, if you want to say “this version of Christianity is unhealthy and counter to many of Christ’s teaching,” and I’m there. The second you trot out a reworded “no TRUE Christian” you fall into a logical fallacy. I’d say the same thing if you were claiming that Pat Robertson’s version was the only true Christianity.
You’re talking about personal interpretations of a thousands of year old translation of a translation written down a generation or so after the events it describes. One which often contradicts itself. You can choose what you get from it, but you don’t get to choose what others get from it.
You are correct about that but not all christian religions follow the teachings of Christ as you present them. I wish more would do that but it is not the case.
“I guess christian doctrine is very open to interpretation. You have christians that preach love and tolerance and those that preach hatred and condemnation.”
That’s a common fallacy that is pushed by men like Robertson to obscure the fact that they omit the Christian gospel in their teachings and preachings. There was no room left to wiggle in the 4 Gospels with “Do unto others” being the cornerstone and our “golden rule”.
Christ was adamant about civility, integrity, decency, mercy, compassion and faith. On the other hand the 4 gospels clearly demonstrate his intolerance for pious hypocrisy and religious leaders without compassion, mercy and human kindness. In fact he spent a good part of his ministry condemning them.
Make no mistake about it. You cannot read the 4 gospels and come away with an “interpretation” of gun worship or hatred of those caught up in sexual transgressions like adultery or homosexuality. He just didn’t preach that and thus any “interpretation” that he did would be based on complete fabrications.
To Tootie & Marsha Christ:
You’ve referenced Jefferson in reference to god, but did you wonder, “which god”? Jefferson was no christian, he was a deist believing in an impersonal creator god, the architect of the universe who has little to do with his creation. All gods/religions end up on the same footing. The Vaudou practicing Haitians worship Loas in concert with/masked by Catholicism. Jefferson likely would have seen it as primitive worship, but likely not less valid that the gods with which he was familiar.
“Why do you get to choose who’s religious, and who’s Christian?”
I don’t. The books of Matthew, Mark Luke and John took care of that. What defines a Christian is in there, and there isn’t any ambiguity about it. No gray areas. The gospels spell out what it means to be a Christian.
I’m just going by the book.
I guess christian doctrine is very open to interpretation. You have christians that preach love and tolerance and those that preach hatred and condemnation.
Buddha,
Did you catch the Daily Show last night? If not you should check out the first segment on the web.
That said, were you really surprised by Pat Robertson’s comment?
Seriously?
30%er,
Why do you get to choose who’s religious, and who’s Christian? Those you claim aren’t real Christians would no doubt say the same of you. For every “love thy neighbor” there’s a “If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” The difference is in which part you choose to ignore and which you choose to follow. I’d hope people would choose to follow the nobler ideals, but those who follow the baser are still following Christian doctrine.
“I couldn’t have said it better. In fact that is the reason I have never been religious. ”
Pat Robertson is many things but religious is not one of them.
What he does is equivalent to a traveling salesman in the old west, selling the “curative”. Snake oils and liniments. With a lot of pomp, show and splendor around it to get the people to give generously.
Robertson’s an entertainer who placates to an ultraviolet extremist non Christian crowd. That they call themselves Christian is merely a ruse. Much like the Snake Oil salesman of the old west used to call himself a Doctor, or Medicine Man.
What they sold wasn’t medicine (unless you were suffering from a hangover) and they weren’t doctors. And Pat Robertson and those who follow him worship guns, violence and hatred. But they are not Christians. Don’t let the name fool you.