Robertson: Atheists Want People To Be Miserable And To Steal “Your Holiday”

We have previously discussed the war on atheists and agnostics that seems to be accelerating with the rise of people claiming to have no religious affiliation or belief in God in the United States, according to recent polls. There is a steady stream of statements from the national and international campaign by leaders against atheists, who appear to be fair game for hateful, ill-informed rhetoric. While you may have seen this already, Pat Robertson pushed this trend to a new low: telling his many viewers that atheists want to everyone to be miserable because they are miserable. They therefore what “to steal your holiday [Christmas] away from you.”

Here are his words of wisdom:

It’s, well, Christmas all over again. The Grinch is trying to steal our holiday. It’s been so beautiful, the nation comes together, we sing Christmas carols, we give gifts to each other, we have lighted trees, and it’s just a beautiful thing. Atheists don’t like our happiness, they don’t want you to be happy, they want you to be miserable. They’re miserable, so they want you to be miserable. So they want to steal your holiday away from you.

There is obviously a rising concern among political and religious leaders that faith is declining in society. Thus, even though the non-religous is now a majority in places like England, politicians are ratcheting up such rhetoric. Robertson’s rhetoric is particularly raw and inciteful, as are comparisons of atheists and agnostics to terrorists. It is an ironic twist. The effort to leave religious expressions to each citizen (as opposed to religious displays by the government) is viewed as a war on religion. There remains an insistence that the government affirm religious — and generally Christian — values and objects of faith. Robertson’s comments not only reflect a surprising insecurity as to the place of religion but an open hostility to those who want their government to be secular-based.

146 thoughts on “Robertson: Atheists Want People To Be Miserable And To Steal “Your Holiday””

  1. So why do you all moan and cry and complain every single year?

    No one cares how you want to celebrate the mid winter holiday season. People celebrate in all sorts of ways and it does not bother me. I find it fascinating. Interesting. Not some sort of threat.

  2. I just have a couple questions? What is the reason for the “holiday” we all celebrate in December? What is the Federal holiday on December 25th called? Of course, CHRISTMAS. This is a time Christians to celebrate the birth of the Savior of the world. So you see, even the Federal Government recognizes the Birth of Jesus, like all the founders of this country did

    Luke 2:10-16

    10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”

    13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:

    14 “Glory to God in the highest,
    And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”[a]

    15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.

  3. Ariel,

    In case you did not know, GeneH. needs no logical excuse for attacking. He does it to all who talk to me.
    I won’t wait for his reply. Worthless.

    Or did you once upon a time tell him that he is full of BS?
    🙂

  4. Ariel-

    Regarding George W. Bush: A father with an unlimited supply of money can make a G.P.A. rise as easily as he can make Air National Guard records disappear.

  5. Ariel,

    You mistake that simply because you said something means it’s automatically worthy of serious address. Just because Marxists are dogmatic and many Marxists are atheists does not mean all atheists are dogmatic – that’s a double false equivalence (between Marxism and atheism and by conflating political dogma with religious dogma) and the fallacy of composition. Atheists regardless of their political views have already shown a predisposition to bucking authority and accepting authority is at the core of the definition of dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true as defined by the OED. As thinkers in general, they are less likely to be dogmatic than a religious thinker as evidenced by that predisposition to disregard religious authorities. Just like PC, you apparently don’t understand what “dogma” entails either.

    Bad logic is bad logic.

  6. Frankly,
    Re Bush. Not takiing a stance, I know him so poorly. However your approach is interesting to the one that is said to be facing Obama with Rice. They have boxed him into a corner, it is said. And I shall not be boxed.
    And have too little experience with others to say how Bush could accomodate this dichotomy.

    Bible rewards: Yes to the abandoners, certainly. But one author says clearly in this lifetime, not in the hereafter.

    ======
    Ariel
    Here is an atheist with not belief in any supernatural BS. There is a very large community of us online. You could start with JREF if you are looking to join”
    ——-
    What is JREF, Google?
    What is supernatural. Do you mean against accepted scientific laws. Laws are meant to be amended and broken by new research. Someone said so here recently, perhaps you or Ariel.

    Deists say they believe in a separate intelligence which has “somthing” to do with our being here (our being even the universe). MikeS correct that?

    I call myself an atheist or rather agnostic, since what one can not perceive can not be proven to not exist.

    God can not be falsified.

  7. 707 – my reading of those verses is that the hundred fold would be the abandoner’s not the falmily’s and it would come in the next world not this one.

    Typing that just made me think of Wimpy “I will gladly pay you in in the next life for a hamburger today”

    Ariel
    Here is an atheist with not belief in any supernatural BS. There is a very large community of us online. You could start with JREF if you are looking to join

  8. When I read a line like “George W. Bush was well read” I am reminded of “A Fish Called Wanda”
    Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
    Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.

    How a guy could be so well read but still understand so little of the world around him is a mystery. I could understand the inarticulate part (coke damages the brain) but to be so ignorant of the world and so devoid of understanding indicates either he really didn’t read much or he got nothing out of all that effort.

  9. Ariel,

    Not to dirty you with my recommendation (consider the source), but you are an unusual bird and definitely in my taste.

    Take for example, your handling of the game of what I call “keep away”, or “pretend somebody farted”.

    “Damn, I hate it when a comment drops into digital oblivion. From shano, through Henman, by way of Gene H., to Henmen. And shano, I do realize you had to find an out after M-L, as you never addressed my response.”

    But instead of ignoring the slight, you pushed on to make your point. Unusual perseverance.
    ============

    And then they are those who would simplify, or arrange in a logical order which can never encompass realisty.
    You addressed it as follows:

    “Nothing in my argument has to do with how many books Carter read or Kennedy read. Journalists found that GW did read a lot of books, thus well read, well beyond what they expected. That’s all I’m going by because I don’t believe the mythos of either party. Why would you?”

    And finally those who make the same mistake that I do, and people in general do (even about themselves). 🙂

    “You confuse intelligence with articulateness.”

    Both to my advantage and other’s disadvantage, for ex. workers or foreigners.

  10. Damn, I hate it when a comment drops into digital oblivion. From shano, through Henman, by way of Gene H., to Henmen. And shano, I do realize you had to find an out after M-L, as you never addressed my response.

    Journalist that traveled with GW expected an illiterate, and found otherwise. That’s what I’m going by, not the mythos that is tied to every President by political prejudice. GW matched or exceeded Gore and Kerry in GPA at University, but he was a dissolute frat-boy. Gore and Kerry were what?

    GW was inarticulate, painfully so, but the ignorant prejudice of articulation as intelligence is so easily shown wrong. Carter, mediocre in articulation, had about 3 standard deviations over Kennedy, but Kennedy was more articulate and sharper of wit than Carter, by far. But he was so far less intelligent…

    Nothing in my argument has to do with how many books Carter read or Kennedy read. Journalists found that GW did read a lot of books, thus well read, well beyond what they expected. That’s all I’m going by because I don’t believe the mythos of either party. Why would you?

    You confuse intelligence with articulateness.

  11. Don’t forget that other thingy he should have read too, HenMan. You know, the one that mentions a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

  12. George W. Bush was well read? Chortle! Chortle! Snort!

    Too bad he didn’t read the most important short story of early 2001, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

  13. Bush was “well read”. That is the funniest statement I have read in quite a while. Wheeee!
    oh yea, Malisha, this sounds exactly like “they hate us fur our freedumbs”.
    great observation, lol.

  14. Shano, please,

    Marxist-Leninism is the height of dogma, Catholicism and the Orthodox lose the race only by a nose and only in the 20th Century. Lenin even had a term for heretic, it was revisionist, and treated them like Torquemada. Stalin was much worse.

    “oh for gods sake, more religious & spiritual people trying to paint athiests in the Marx-Lenin corner. Most of us just like the sciences. All of them. ” My Bachelor degree was 120 hours of science from an applied perspective, but not all in Engineering, and I did take philosophy as well history. I never take science as anything other than best at this time, always tentative. Forty years ago the consensus of science was very few stars had planets and dinosaurs didn’t have feathers, well except for one lineage.

    With that, I like science too, but not like a pretty woman. The beauty of science is it always corrects, it always changes. It always gets better with age.

    “Now as for dogma, the ultimate filling of that space is Marxist-Leninism.” If you were drawing from this of mine: given the revisionist as heretic, the embalming and presentation of Lenin as saint, how isn’t M-L the ultimate filling in the 20th Century? I did leave off “20th Century” but thought that was understood.

    I do understand the knee-jerk reaction. I’ve had to listen to friends going on and on as to how M-L represented atheism. I’m an American atheist, M-L has nothing to do with me. But dogma is dogma, and Lenin did it so well.

  15. Malisha,

    “Um, doesn’t it sound like “They hate us because of our freedom”? Yeah, the guy was inarticulate but actually well read (just go to what some journalists wrote after time on Air Force One with he he is so inarticulate). They don’t hate us because of our freedom, they hate us because of what we think freedom is (whatever “is” means).

  16. Idealist707,

    You did fine, I hope I did as well, and I thank you for the kindness while disagreeing.

    “Congruency in reference points and POVs are important, but not always necessary either.” Amen brother and hallelujah (religious phrases are like long German words, sometimes you just can’t say it any other way). Clarity without judgement, agree to disagree without prejudice.

    “Quoting the except was to point to the difficulties we have using just the blunt instruments of words here.” You know blunt instruments can cause trauma, saw that on CSI. Words are only blunt instruments when we we use them on others instead of using them with others. Sometimes others deserve blunt force trauma. I can be the “other’, others believe they are never that “other”. (That may have been hubris masked as self-deprecation but still I feel so belittled.)

    Glad you liked the Lenny quote.

Comments are closed.