Pat Robertson remains something of an enigma. Just when you dismiss him as a religious wing nut who says that God gives him tips of who will win elections; atheists want people to be miserable; and causes earthquakes to punish Haitians as Devil worshippers. Then Robertson turns around and calls for the legalization of marijuana and now called for evangelists to stop suggesting that the Earth is only 6000 years old when every scientific fact points to the contrary. I wish he would just pick one side of the sanity/insanity line and stick with it because this is getting confusing.
Robertson finally uttered the truth about a ludicrous calculation made in 1650 by the Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher when he estimated that the Earth was created on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. Yet, forty six percent of pastors insist the Earth is 6000 years old. American politicians like Sarah Palin and others (here) also still proclaim faith in the young age of the Earth as biblically correct even if it is scientifically nonsensical.
Robertson’s surprising comments came on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club.” A viewer wrote into the show to express her “biggest fear is to not have my children and husband next to me in God’s Kingdom because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.” In response, Robertson said:
Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop [James] Ussher wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t. You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.
They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible. . . . If you fight science, you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.”
It is an interesting contrast to so many politicians. In the GOP primary, Huntsman was a refreshing contrast in challenging the party to stop denying science. Had the GOP embraced Huntsman, I am convinced it would have secured the White House. Instead, his candidacy died out with little support as science-denying candidates prevailed in race after race.
This announcement follows an admission from Robertson that he misheard God’s tip on who would win the presidential election. Earlier he told viewers that God told him the name of the ultimate victor. After the election, Robertson explained that he “missed” the message. He explained “I sure did miss it, I thought I heard from God, I thought I had heard clearly from God, what happened? What intervenes? Why? You ask God, how did I miss it? Well, we all do and I’ve had a lot of practice.”
It is part of the yin and yang of Pat Robertson. One moment is he clear and cogent and the next he will channelling bizarre messages from the Almighty.
Source: Huff Post
Swarthmore mom
1, November 30, 2012 at 9:59 am
Maybe what Robertson learned at Yale Law School surfaces every once in a while.
———————————————————————–
lol … 👿
“if the GOP had simply selected a candidate that supports only about 50% of the insanity the party believes they might have won.”
Huntsman to a tee, Frankly.
Mike S. Jeb’s wife is Mexican, and his son George P. Bush has formed a campaign committee in Texas. Don’t know what he is running for yet maybe AG if Perry does not run for governor and Abbott moves up. The family is definitely on the move again.
You can pretty much dismiss what Pat from the arm chair pulpit has to say….
“His positions are similar to that of Jeb Bush who will be preferred to Huntsman if he does decide to run.”
SwM,
Although I was wrong in thinking that Jeb would be the GOP nominee this year, he was obviously smart enough not to be, his and the Bush family’s statements in the run-up to this election were definitely, intentionally moderate to position him for the future. Also remember his wife is Latino.
“Huntsman was anti- gay marriage and anti-abortion and for a tax plan that clearly favored the very very wealthy, but I will agree he seemed more reasonable.”
I simply could not support someone evincing the above three positions that you point out. The rights of homosexuals are equal in importance to any other constitutional rights being abridged. The opposition to abortion has always been code for the repression of women and of their sexuality. Finally, Huntsman and Bush would definitely favor a continuation of policies that maintain this countries program of socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else. To my mind support for any of those three issues alone rules out my support.
OOPs, my link is to ape man by the Kinks. Music was much different in the 60s and 70s.
This election has caused many people on the radical right to re-evaluate. Even Fox ‘News’ viewers are waking up to the propaganda they are being fed day after day (about time, too):
SwM,
Think all the “good” things one misses being away from home so long. 🙂 Where did he finish? I mean parish!!!
Re Jeb Bush. Poppy is paying a million a year just to stay alive to get Bush III elected. So it is a given.
Will he do it without a revolution or with. He will do whatever is needed. Adams? Haw! Pikers!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39052_Jon_Huntsman-_Maybe_Not_Anti-Science_But_Definitely_Anti-Womens_Rights
idealist, Robertson ran in the republican primary in 1988. The party was not as packed with evangelicals as it is now.
Gene – yes, if the GOP had simply selected a candidate that supports only about 50% of the insanity the party believes they might have won.
If that were to happen I would be investing in some very large and very sturdy umbrellas to protect me from what would be dropping from the airborne pigs
Huntsman was anti- gay marriage and anti-abortion and for a tax plan that clearly favored the very very wealthy, but I will agree he seemed more reasonable. He certainly was too reasonable to be nominated by the republican party. His positions are similar to that of Jeb Bush who will be preferred to Huntsman if he does decide to run.
If the devil gets religion when he gets old, can Robertson get scentific?
We just have to be glad that with Yale Law as a background that he did not choose politics.
I liked Huntsman too. But an election is composed of more than a good, clean and wise candidate with good policies and a good platform. Look at McGovern in ’72.
So, we’ll never know until maybe 2016, if the Rs can change that much—and their supporters too.
I guess Ol’ Pat might not hear so good when God is whispering who to put money on in the Intrade election betting racket, but he CAN hear the laughter of every thinking person when they consider a worldview based on a 17th-Century zealot’s patriarch-lifespan addition skills.
Srsly, the fundie’s view of science boils down to “If I don’t unnerstan it, it cain’t be true.” As much as I think Muslim fundamentalists are morons too, even THEY accept more science than Xian fundies do.
A noted physicist also gave it up last week on the supersymmetry hypothesis which, like the 6,000 year old Earth hypothesis, required its adherents to twist themselves into pretzels in order to perpetuate it.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
“Had the GOP embraced Huntsman, I am convinced it would have secured the White House. Instead, his candidacy died out with little support as science-denying candidates prevailed in race after race.”
I have to mostly agree. He was the only reasonable candidate the GOP had and while I disagreed with him on a couple of policy issues, he could have gotten my vote with some others. It might not have been a slamdunk for Huntsman, but it wouldn’t have been the through routing that the Mittens got either.
But Pat picking Team Sanity over Team Insanity? I’m pretty sure Pat is playing out of bounds even if he does occasionally pass the ball to the other team.
Maybe what Robertson learned at Yale Law School surfaces every once in a while.