Pat Robertson blames Haitian earthquake

[Rev.Reverence]

..honestly....

...other than laughing harder than during peak hour whilst watching him be an ass whilst I was coming down (It was the 90s, we did lots of drugs back then, that's why half of us are DEAD.)..I really did not know how much of an asshole this guy was...check this out, one of my Brothers told me of it.

In 1989, Charles Taylor seized power in Liberia. In 1997, he was elected president, but many observers said that the elections were fraudulent. Taylor is wanted in Sierra Leone as a war criminal, and most everyone agrees that he is the main impediment to peace in his own nation. So why is his biggest defender American religious leader Pat Robertson?

There seems to be very little that is good that can be said about the government of Charles Taylor. During the time of Taylor's rule, Liberia has been plagued by civil war and domestic strife; a cease-fire agreement requires that he step down, allowing for the creation of a transitional government and new, free elections. President Bush has asked him to make sure that he leaves office so that Liberia might finally achieve peace, and Taylor has accepted an offer of asylum from Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo.

The United States has passed laws banning the import of diamonds from war-torn African countries, including Liberia, because they are used to fund war and terrorism. A United Nations-established tribunal has indicted Taylor for backing diamond-financed militias that raped and maimed civilians during the civil war in Sierra Leone.

None of this, however, sits well with Pat Robertson. In broadcasts of his 700 Club program, Robertson has criticized President Bush's call for Taylor to step down, has praised Taylor as a "fellow Baptist," and has accused the State Department of being the real cause of Liberia's problems. To quote Robertson's own words:

So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'

So why is Pat Robertson such a big fan of Liberia's President Charles Taylor? What you won't hear much about on Robertson's shows is the fact that he has a huge financial interest in Liberia. Under Taylor's regime in 1999, Robertson negotiated an $8 million investment in a gold mining venture. A new government may or may not honor Robertson's claims - if they don't, he'll be out an awful lot of cash.

Robertson's motives probably aren't entirely financial: he also seems to have a strong religious motivation, or at least he claims to. Charles Taylor professes to be a Christian and claims to want to lead Liberia as a Christian Nation. This, naturally enough, sits very well with Pat Robertson. He may not be able to force Christianity onto American citizens, but helping an African leader do it to his own citizens may be easier.

In addition, Robertson has repeatedly framed the civil unrest in Liberia as that between Christians like Taylor on the one side and Muslim rebels on the other. Thus, any efforts to get Taylor to step down are portrayed as a means of "handing over" Liberia to Islam. This is what Robertson accuses the State Department of doing and why he believes that they are to blame for much of the violence. This is also the sort of thing that leads to the (justified) accusations made by Muslim leaders that many conservative and evangelical Christians are trying to influence American government policy against Islam.

Fortunately, Pat Robertson is very much alone in this position - not even other conservative Christian leaders in America who might otherwise be inclined to sympathize with an African Christian politician are joining the defense of Charles Taylor. Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm, has stated that "I would say that Pat Robertson is way out on his own, in a leaking life raft, on this one."

Perhaps Robertson's financial stake in Liberia's current government is stronger than his religious interest after all? At any rate, Pat Robertson has staked a clear position where he favors a Christian business partner and politician accused of horrific crimes, even when that means rejecting the possibility of achieving a stable peace in a nation that has been ravaged by war an suffering. And yet Pat Robertson pretends to be the sort of person qualified to lecture others on morality and ethics.

[Brenda Starrr]

Since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in the devil. However, Pat Robertson is a raging asshole.

[Msterbeau]

Does anyone else feel like tearing this guy's spine out?

Not really. I think just tossing him out of an airplane would suffice.

[pomba gira]

What about Voudoun? Does that word exist? Or Vodou, Vaudou, Vodun ... ?

My Haitian friend who serves the spirits spells it "Voudun"... she considers the "voodoo" spelling deeply pejorative. "Lwa" seems to be the standard Kreyol spelling for the "spirits".

[phee]

Since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in the devil. However, Pat Robertson is a raging asshole.

[StormKnight (1)]

Does anyone else feel like tearing this guy's spine out?

Not really. I think just tossing him out of an airplane would suffice.

Unfortunately, I believe his fanatic followers would let loose a "holy war" against the rest of society to avenge him. Personally, I would like to see him publicly humiliated, to turn his followers against him. The trouble with creating monsters in fanatics is that if you show any weakness to them, they will turn on you.

[n0Mad]

If you'ld have taken the link over...& read the rest...fuck it, here...

I usually don't follow links and prefer it when people copy and paste the pertinent info. So thank you for doing so.

Since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in the devil. However, Pat Robertson is a raging asshole.

Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

My Haitian friend who serves the spirits spells it "Voudun"... she considers the "voodoo" spelling deeply pejorative. "Lwa" seems to be the standard Kreyol spelling for the "spirits".

Cool info. Thanks.

[Rev.Reverence]

I usually don't follow links and prefer it when people copy and paste the pertinent info. So thank you for doing so.

...no prob

[KatRN05]

Pat Robertson is an asshole. He's as bad as those assholes who go to U.S. soldiers' funerals and protest against homosexuality and gay marriage.

[pomba gira]

Not really. I think just tossing him out of an airplane would suffice.

I say we ship him to Haiti so he can explain his theory to all the bereaved and homeless people there, face to face.

[Rev.Reverence]

Pat Robertson is an asshole. He's as bad as those assholes who go to U.S. soldiers' funerals and protest against homosexuality and gay marriage.

I think he encourages those assholes...

I say we ship him to Haiti so he can explain his theory to all the bereaved and homeless people there, face to face.

..you know; I think that's the only JUST punishment I've heard mentioned...anywhere.

[Rev.Reverence]

..you know; I think that's the only JUST punishment I've heard mentioned...anywhere.

Oh..wait....we WON'T have to send him over there...

I'll even help PRAY.

*gets back to the drums*

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Does the fact that there is historical evididence that the people of Haiti did infact make a "deal with the Devil" factor in to anything?

[phee]

Does the fact that there is historical evididence that the people of Haiti did infact make a "deal with the Devil" factor in to anything?

[Msterbeau]

I think he encourages those assholes...

..you know; I think that's the only JUST punishment I've heard mentioned...anywhere.

I like it better than mine. +10000000000000000000

[torn asunder]

Does the fact that there is historical evididence that the people of Haiti did infact make a "deal with the Devil" factor in to anything?

if you're going to make a statement like that, you should probably back it up, because you just know people are going to want5 to know what the hell you're talking about...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Well, that wasn't a statement... it was a question.

but to answer your challenge. The Slave revolt of 1791 is where you have to look. According to Haitian folklore, the slaves made a pact with the devil in exchange for freedom from the French. Dutty Boukman, the leader of the revolt, sopposidly led the ritual and sacrifices. The down side of this deal was 200 years service to Satan.

[KatRN05]

It doesn't matter if the whole "pact with the devil" thing is true, the remark was insensitive.

[phee]

Well, that wasn't a statement... it was a question.

but to answer your challenge. The Slave revolt of 1791 is where you have to look. According to Haitian folklore, the slaves made a pact with the devil in exchange for freedom from the French. Dutty Boukman, the leader of the revolt, sopposidly led the ritual and sacrifices. The down side of this deal was 200 years service to Satan.

Just curious... how do you think this effects the situation involving the statement made by Robertson?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Just curious... how do you think this effects the situation involving the statement made by Robertson?

Well, I don't see it as a "situation" or the things being said on Democratic Underground would be a "situation". there are many people on there making almost the exact same comments if not worse.. except they interchange the words "devil" and "Satan' with "USA".

My point is, it's called Free Speech... even when you don't like whats being said.

[phee]

Well, I don't see it as a "situation" or the things being said on Democratic Underground would be a "situation". there are many people on there making almost the exact same comments if not worse.. except they interchange the words "devil" and "Satan' with "USA".

My point is, it's called Free Speech... even when you don't like whats being said.

I think I see your point about the free speech... a lot of people are talking about killing the dude, which maybe in jest but still is not really defending free speech. I totally agree that he should be able to say whatever he wants and not be censored, just as people should be able to express there dislike for what he says without being censored.

But I confess you have totally lost me with the Democratic Underground statement...

If the term is with the word situation, I will rephrase, instead of situation, think "context" In other words: how do you think this information effects the context in which people are responding to the statement made by Robertson?

(and yes he has said something similar during every natural and unnatural disaster for quite some time now... he said Katrina was Gods punishment, that 9-11 was linked to becoming too lenient with homosexual rights as well, he had comments about the Tsunami as well.)

[Slogo]

Well, that wasn't a statement... it was a question.

but to answer your challenge. The Slave revolt of 1791 is where you have to look. According to Haitian folklore, the slaves made a pact with the devil in exchange for freedom from the French. Dutty Boukman, the leader of the revolt, sopposidly led the ritual and sacrifices. The down side of this deal was 200 years service to Satan.

That would have ended 19 years ago

BTW...Nordic folklore says that Loki cut off Sif's hair, Thor got pissed at him and we was forced to have dwarves make her new hair out of gold...that doesn't mean it happened.

[phee]

That would have ended 19 years ago

BTW...Nordic folklore says that Loki cut off Sif's hair, Thor got pissed at him and we was forced to have dwarves make her new hair out of gold...that doesn't mean it happened.

I don't know if it was an argument that Haiti may have actually made a pact with "The Devil" but, more an explanation of where Robertson was getting his speech from...

*shrugs*

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I think I see your point about the free speech... a lot of people are talking about killing the dude, which maybe in jest but still is not really defending free speech. I totally agree that he should be able to say whatever he wants and not be censored, just as people should be able to express there dislike for what he says without being censored.

But I confess you have totally lost me with the Democratic Underground statement...

If the term is with the word situation, I will rephrase, instead of situation, think "context" In other words: how do you think this information effects the context in which people are responding to the statement made by Robertson?

(and yes he has said something similar during every natural and unnatural disaster for quite some time now... he said Katrina was Gods punishment, that 9-11 was linked to becoming too lenient with homosexual rights as well, he had comments about the Tsunami as well.)

Perhaps you should check out the posts there. you will love it... hard core Liberals. They are blaming the high death counts in Haiti directly on US policys.

As for the context. Ignorance.

They are ignorant of Haiti's history and just how wildly voodoo (or what ever name you want to give it) is practiced there.

They are also ignorant of Christian beleifs, specifically ignorant of those who follow the Old Testament. Everyone focuses so much on Jesus that they forget about God. God, is a loving God... but he/she is also wrath incarnate and has no prpblem destroying a city as punishment.

And Slogo.... you should check out the major changes in Haiti's govement that line up with the end of the 200 years.

[phee]

Ah so hardcore to the point of being conspiracy nuts eh? Always fun on either camp that.

So you are saying that the fact (because it is a fact) that the religion there is as such (voodooish) and the fact that the old testament does of course contain a very wrathful god in parts (cities into salt, killing of first born, etc...) Makes what Robertson is saying... more um... well I don't want to speak for you.

And the above is based on an assumption that these people are ignorant to this... Do you have proof that they are ignorant to these facts? Or is this simply an opinion? Because if it is simply an opinion that generalizes the "They" in your statement, then I think that might be a bit of an over generalization... But since you did not specify... The "They" in your statement, who are you referring to? The Liberal Underground folks? DGN? might help if that were clearer.