Pat Robertson Explains Miracles More Likely In Africa and Other Countries Where People are Less Educated, Simple, and Humble

Rev. Pat Robertson appears to have isolated the reason for the decline in miracles and faith in general — education. In a recent answer to why there are more miracles in places like Africa, Robertson explained that in places like Africa people are “simple, humble” and just accept what you tell them.

A viewer named Ken asked Robertson about the miracle gap with Africa and other parts of the world:

Why do amazing miracles (people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking) happen with great frequency in places like Africa, and not here in the USA? What can we do to encourage those things to happen here? Is America too far gone for miracles like this? — KEN

Pat Robertson explained that people are ruined by over-education:

“Those people overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools. Well, we’re so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out, we know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real, we know about all this stuff. And if we’d be in many schools, the more advanced schools, we have been inundated with skepticism and secularism. Overseas they’re simple, humble. You tell them God loves them, and they say ‘ok, he loves me’. You say ‘God will do miracles’ and they say ‘okay, we believe him.’ And that’s what God’s looking for, that’s why they have miracles.”

It is a truly embarrassing suggestion that education undermines religion. According to Robertson, religion needs less educated people who simply believe what they are told by people like Robertson.

94 thoughts on “Pat Robertson Explains Miracles More Likely In Africa and Other Countries Where People are Less Educated, Simple, and Humble”

  1. I had thought it was a Charlie Daniels song I heard so many years ago, but a bit of internet sleuthing reveals these lyrics came from Hank Williams, Jr. The song is called “American Dream.”

    Now there are some preachers on TV
    With a suit and a tie and a vest
    They want you to send your money to the Lord
    But they give you their address
    ‘Cause all of your donations are completely tax free
    God Bless you all, but most of all send your money

  2. I think the survivalists have it all wrong. It will be the American Taliban that will force us underground. As already stated by Mike and OS and Gene, keep your religion out of my life and I will keep my religion out of yours.

  3. @ ANOMYNOUSLY YOURS . . . I cannot decide whether you are Pat Robinson, himself or if you are poking fun at him ! ( wink, wink ). It is true that churches these days are mainly about MONEY, unlike in the days of the apostle Paul. ( 2 Corinthians 2:17 ). He instructed each congregation to set aside something at the beginning of the week, so he could collect it and give it to the men of God ( as a way to support themselves ), but the so-called men of God these days have other jobs, businesses, investments, real estate, merchandise they PEDDLE, and even LOVE offerings, from their congregation ! Today, Religion has become a real ” racket “, and people feel under pressure, and decide against going to church ! The scripture says we are to give what we can AFFORD, not grudgingly, because God loves a cheerful giver ( 2 Corinthians 9:7 ) ! We are no longer under the TITHE, in the Old Testament, which were also used to support the priests, who in the end took on secular jobs ! Nor are we under the Laws of Moses, becase we became under GRACE ( Romans 6:14, and 7:6 ), when Jesus died for us ( Romans 7:4 ) ! God told Isaiah , that He would form a new covenant, and that did happen ! Read the book of Hebrews 8:7 – 13. I do not believe that Pat Robertson has been blessed, with wealth by God ! Why ? The scripture says that it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it will be for a rich man to enter heaven ( Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25 ), so why would God enrichen Pat Robinson, and spoil his chance of going to heaven ? THEY are keeping their congregation from entering heaven ( Matthew 23:13 ) ? Heehee. Jesus decribed THEM perfectly ( Matthew 23:28 ). He also described THEM, in Matthew 23: 1- 7 ! Yes, that certainly describes THEM ! Heehee. Rememeber what Jesus said about those who say, ” Lord, Lord. ” ( Matthew 7:21 – 23 ) ! We are not to store up riches on earth ! ( Matthew 6:19, 20 ).

  4. Mike& Gene,
    I don’t believe I don’t believe Jim/Blane “gets it.” No one is keeping them from believing what they want and exercising their freedom of religion in their own private practice. That is, unless they engage in religious practices that harm the public welfare. Honor killings, public stoning, or child endangerment are examples of harming the public welfare. Since there are religions in the world that still engage in such practices as part of their core beliefs, wonder what Jim/Blane would think if those folks took over governance in the US.

    Where the legal and moral line is drawn is if they try to impose their religious beliefs and practices on you, me, or the general public. My suggestion is the same as Mike, just above. Don’t do what you don’t believe in. Just leave the rest of us alone.

  5. Blane,

    So what? It wasn’t founded by Blackstone. If you’d been dead since 1780, I could start something called “The Blane Institute” and claim whatever nonsense about Blane I pleased. He’s been dead for 230 plus years after all. This is apparently what this Virginia C. Armstrong, Ph.D. has done to Blackstone.

    She’s not even a lawyer. Her degree is in “political science and public law” which is not a Juris Doctorate – commonly called a law degree. It’s not from an accredited law school but rather from the markedly pro-Christian Hardin-Simmons University. Unlike their brothers in arms seeking to undermine the secular history of law in this country, Regents, this Baptist driven “school” doesn’t even have a law school much less an accredited law school. See, you need a J.D. from an accredited law school to even sit for the vast majority of state bars. You also conveniently left out the disclaimer from The Blackstone Institute’s own website: “The Blackstone Institute is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation, as such your donation may be tax-deductible. Your contributions go directly to the work of the ministry and are deeply appreciated. The Institute does not engage in litigation, offer legal counsel, or provide law school or paralegal education. Please make your check out to “Blackstone Institute” which can be mailed to the address found here.” [emphasis added] A 501(c)(3) is a “Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations”. Since they are not engaged in the practice of law or providing legal education by the terms of their own website? They must be engaging in something else on that list of approved purposes. Perhaps engaging some historical revisionism in the name of their religion of choice? That is what self-proclaimed “culture warriors” are known for after all – promoting religious agendas. It says their contributions “directly to the work of the ministry” so it is fair to assume that they are a 501(c)(3) toward a primarily religious end.

    In short, when it comes to the law and the history of law, “The Blackstone Institute” doesn’t know what they are talking about as a jurisprudential factual matter. Just because some Ph.D. opines about Blackstone doesn’t mean what she is saying an accurate portrayal of Blackstone as a matter of jurisprudence fact. At best, it is simply an opinion by a layperson. Is she entitled to that opinion? Sure. She’s even entitled to express it. Doesn’t mean she’s right. Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from criticism.

    How do I know this? I have a J.D. and am considered a subject matter expert on the law. I know when hooey is being said about the law. Telling me that Blackstone’s works are based on canon law instead of the collective decisions of English judges (precedent) is like telling a physics doctorate that E does not equal mc^2 or a medical doctor that the heart is made of magic bunnies. It’s funny, sure, but it’s simply not true. Of Blackstone’s influences – not to be confused with sources which are all in the form of precedent – the only truly valid criticism that can be made is that he had a notable but not fatally biased political inclination toward Whig-style conservatism. When Blackstone even uses the word “God”? It isn’t as legal authority. It is to distinguish between real and artificial people (such as corporations) under the law, namely that people are born with inherent rights and that legal fictions are not. When he discusses the clergy? It is to put the privileges they enjoyed under English law (such as not being required to serve on juries) in the context of precedent. And you don’t even want to know what Blackstone said about marriages as it totally blows the arguments against homosexual marriage out of the water. (Here’s a hint: he views them as contracts.)

    Calling themselves “The Blackstone Institute” and having someone with a Ph.D. on the masthead sure sounds impressive though. It makes for a good sell to the uneducated. Sounds authoritative.

    What does this all mean? It mean that if “The Blackstone Institute” is your appeal to authority? I’m simply going to laugh in your face.

    You might as well be citing Winnie the Pooh, your dog, or the guy at 7-11 as your legal authority.

    1. “So what? It wasn’t founded by Blackstone. If you’d been dead since 1780, I could start something called “The Blane Institute” and claim whatever nonsense about Blane I pleased. He’s been dead for 230 plus years after all. This is apparently what this Virginia C. Armstrong, Ph.D. has done to Blackstone.”


      Nice bit of research. Amazing isn’t it how far these “true believers” will go to try to add gloss to their un-historical musings? Also too there is the money as incentive.

  6. Gene H.

    The Blackstone Institute honors Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780). Blackstone was the great Eighteenth Century English legal scholar whose philosophy and writings were infused with Judeo-Christian principles. The Ten Commandments are at the heart of Blackstone’s philosophy. Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law. Our Founding Fathers referred to Blackstone more than to any other English or American authority. Blackstone’s great work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, was basic to the U. S. Constitution. This work has sold more copies in America than in England and was a basic textbook of America’s early lawyers. It was only in the mid-Twentieth Century that American law, being re-written by the U. S. Supreme Court, repudiated Blackstone. An attack on Blackstone is an attack on the U. S. Constitution and our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations. The Blackstone Institute is committed to reviving the Constitution and its Blackstonian foundations.

    The Blackstone Institute

  7. Bob Kauten

    Everything you said prove Pat’s point. You try to apply reason rather than faith which is why more miracles do happen in Africa and countries alike.

  8. I started thinking about those who would exhort us to follow Biblical injunctions literally. IMHO, Robert Ingersoll summed that up better than anyone before or since with a single pithy remark.

    Robert Green Ingersoll was an attorney, Army Colonel, orator, Republican, son of a Congregationalist preacher, and who lost his faith in religion as he grew older. He wrote extensively about how he started out as a child in a deeply religious family and ended up an agnostic.

    If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.

  9. Jim/Blane,
    Oh Noes! I did not stay up last night waiting breathlessly for a reply to my questions so I could respond in what you deemed a timely manner. My bad! Heh. The fact that old folks like me do need their beauty rest after fifteen hours at the office.

    I am familiar with the verses quoted. The Bible is very much like a Rorschach test. People read into it what they want, projecting their own biases, fears and interests. During my lifetime I have watched people cherry pick verses that say what they want it to say, never mind that one can find another verse somewhere else that says something different. Additionally, there is a catch. The Bible is neither the law of the land nor the controlling document for our government. The founders were most concerned about that. They got to these shores because they fled theocratic governments in Europe. The last thing they wanted was state sponsored religion forced on them.

    As for Blackstone, I have a leather bound four volume set of Blackstone in the living room. Those books do not say what you think they say.

    As always, the late Robert A. Heinlein has some of the most succinct and accurate observations about religion trying to influence government:

    When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.

    It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.

    One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.

    And Heinlein wrote one line that applies directly to you, Jim/Blane, as well as like minded folks such as you:

    Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.

  10. I suppose one way of looking at the Christian (Canon) law versus the laws of the state would be to think of it in terms of Tribal Law being enforced against non-indians, that is as it relates to non-christians being expected to adhere to church law.

    I will use Tribal Law as enforceable in my state which is what I know better.

    In WA tribal police officers acting even on a reservation do not have any jurisdiction over non-indians even on reservations UNLESS the tribal officer is commissioned by the local sheriff AND is State Certified as a General Authority WA Peace Officer AND is enforcing state law. Indians cannot enforce tribal law upon non-Indians under any circumstances. The only time they can enforce state law is if all three criteria mentioned above exist.

    If one thinks of Christian laws/rules as, in this respect, as tribal law, it becomes a bit more clear as to whether or not it is enforceable against someone who is not a member of that particular sect or church. But it is for illustrative purposes.

    A person wanting to partake in a church and becomes a member of that church has to obey the rules of that church or can be excommunicated out of it. But, once that person steps outside the church “reservation” and is no longer a member of that church, the church has no authority over that church. Similarily, a person of Jewish, or other faith is not bound by that church’s authority.

    Both members of the church, and those who are not are nevertheless still bound by State Law, which has authority over all persons in that state.

    While not completely illustrative, I think the tribal example is a close approximation to how to think of church authority as it compares to the applicability of tribal law.

  11. Jim, Blane,
    Thank you so much for allowing us to follow the Constitution, rather than some Bronze-Age fantasy writings. What a relief!
    You are entitled to believe any interpretation of any book, and worship, or not worship, any invisible people you wish.
    You are not entitled to change secular law in the U.S.A. to reflect your righteousness, hypocrisy, and bigotry. That goes for Federal or state, or municipal, or county laws.
    Kindly produce proof that Madison didn’t think gays should be married. Spent a lot of time cogitating about gays, did he? Or did he have a life?

    None of your arguments quoting some primitive people who wrote some text about a deity, have any bearing on this discussion.

    But, to humor you:
    Did your deity write those texts? What sort of pen did it use? Ball-point? Quill?
    If your deity didn’t write those texts, then some humans did, right? That would certainly explain the self-contradictory, rambling, incoherence of the texts. Absolutely any point of view, no matter how vile, can be supported by cherry-picking this junk collection. Slavery, rape, and murder, for example.

    Where in the U.S.A. does your deity vote? If it’s not a citizen, it has nothing whatsoever to say about any law anywhere in this country.

    Why don’t you quote from Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason”?
    Paine discusses your book almost line-by-line. There’s a man who was involved in the British Colonial and French Revolutions.

    The actual topic of this discussion is that Pat Robertson is a shameless exploiter of ignorant folk. He has finally admitted it. He remains that, despite any random babblings from a book of fantasy.

    Finally, if Greenbaum is going to the place that’s the best, I’m going to the other one.

  12. Thankfully it wasn’t Blackstone himself you were channeling, Mike.

    Those wigs are hot and sweaty, especially in a southern clime. 😀

  13. Mike A. and Gene,
    Once again, it is amazing how those fact things just keep screwing up a perfectly imagined argument.

  14. Gene H.,
    I see that I was merely channeling you in my last comment.

  15. Jim,
    You may have heard of Blackstone, but had you actually read him, you would understand that your reference to the basis for his Commentaries is completely false. Secondly, your suggestion that the states may adopt preferential religious laws is also false.

    Fundamentalist revisionism is a real and growing problem in this country. You appear to be part of that problem.

  16. “I do not believe Madison thought gays should be getting married either.” – Jim

    I do not believe you can prove that statement.

    It is, however, quite easy to prove that Madison would disapprove of any attempt to impose Christian dogma on the people by force of law.

  17. JIm,
    How we think as Christians has nothing to do with the Constitution. And no, the states cannot violate the US Constitution or their own state constitutions because they disagree with them. If citizens or states were allowed to violate the constitution because their bible tells them to violate it, they may have just violated my rights and violated the laws of the land. When I can cite the bible in court as precedent that overrules the law of the land, then come talk to me. It is not important what you think Madison might have believed about Gay marriages. If the constitution says equal rights for All, then it has to be followed.

Comments are closed.