Nice. Thanks for arming me with another counter-argument for the gotchas. I can now accuse them of "intellectual triangulation" and watch them squirm!

Excellent post.

I guess it doesn't make much sense to me. One doesn't have to be motivated by anything other than standing up for reason and against unreason in order to denounce an outrageous statement, whether that statement is by someone you would consider an ally or an adversary. You say that you'll stick to not breaking the 11th commandment unless your criticism is warranted, but would your criticism of Robertson's comments last week not have been warranted? It seems to me that you must have some standard in mind other than whether it's warranted. To my way of thinking, if a criticism is warranted there is always good reason to voice it, regardless of whether one is criticizing an ally or an adversary because speaking the truth should be the only justification required.

Just for the record, Reagan did not observe his 11th commandment in his race against incumbent Republican president Gerald Ford in 1976. Although Reagan was not by any means nasty, his political attacks on Ford were rather sharp. In fact, Reagan's only shot at the 1976 nomination was in not keeping the 11th commandment.

The 11th commandment only applies in situations where criticizing members of your own team would block your team from getting a win. To say you'll observe the 11th in this case is to say that ideologically you and Pat are on the same team.

Better not to do the outrage posts because they're boring and intellectually unchallenging.

It's unfortunate that 'triangulation' is used to describe Clinton's straddling. After all, it means to locate a broadcast by measuring signal amplitude at three receivers.

There's another purpose to the kind of "well, I'm no Pat Robertson(/Ward Churchill" discourse than merely 'triangulating'. It's pretty important, really, to police the boundaries of civilized discourse. For one thing, it does help at least a little to inoculate the discourse at large from some of the worse forms of sophistry -- not just the "denounce this!" gambit (which I agree is a very stupid move), but also the "some on the right/left have said..." arguments, or what we might call "smear by association".

Moreover, there's a continual struggle to keep the more lunatic elements out of the conversation, which they tend to be destructive of. It's simply good for everyone if the more extreme sorts are labeled as such, and kept from poisoning the public well. But there's no use in a lefty trying to police the right flank against insanity, or vice-versa -- such cross-partisan line-drawing will just look, well, partisan. But when the lefties declare someone on the left to be beyond the pale (mutatis mutandis for the right), then that really can go some way towards keeping those people from having standing in the discussion.

A lot of this discussion circles around the right idea - it just gets lost in the desire to maintain personal pet views, but here goes:

Anyone can be totally and completely wrong on one point or another and still be a) an intelligent and well-respected person, and b) not disowned by his/her own "kind." It's called making mistakes.

Pat Robertson, while perhaps a bit over the edge in some respects, is quoting Scripture; he's not making it up. What may turn out to be his error is his interpretation of current events in light of Scripture; however, he's accurate on the text. Just like his comments regarding Hugo Chavez were misguided, his comments regarding the reasons for Sharon's ill health are, too.

No one is perfect. While acknowledging this doesn't give anyone the right to intellectual or political laziness or lack of discretion, the fact is that we all have made and will continue to make mistakes - some more glaring than others.

Why is there such a "Lord of the Flies" reaction to kill our own wounded just because they had the gall to be publicly wrong? That type of environment leaves no room for someone to say "I shouldn't have said that - even if I believe it, it was neither appropriate nor even kind to say so and I apologize for the hurt I've caused by my intemperate words. Please forgive me."

If someone has the integrity and courage to acknowledge fault and ask for forgiveness, we don't say "we forgive you; go and sin no more." We exercise the modern equivalents of public flogging and the stocks so that people can throw rotten produce at the offender until public opinion is assuaged. That isn't modern or enlightened; it's a technologically more advanced mechanism for the same thing, and it stinks.

philosopher makes an excellent point, and let me add yet another legitimate reason for criticizing those in one's camp, so to speak: because you genuinely think they're wrong. I have some experience with this and I've taken a bit of heat over it. For instance, I've been very critical of Richard Dawkins' evangelical atheism. There are multiple reasons for that. First, I don't want to be associated with those views. Second, I want people to understand that not everyone in the evolution camp feels the way he feels. But most importantly, I genuinely think he's wrong on the matter (not that his atheism is wrong, on that I don't profess to know, but that his general condemnation of theism as inherently irrational is wrong).

I confess I'm unable to understand how anyone with a college education, much less an advanced degree, from a reputable school could consider Pat Robertson part of his or her "own kind" except in the most minimal and least meaningful senses ("carbon-based lifeforms," "DNA-replicating machines"). Robertson, as phil points out, is not aiming to enlighten others or elevate the discourse; he is pissing in it.

"I confess I'm unable to understand how anyone with a college education, much less an advanced degree, from a reputable school could consider Pat Robertson part of his or her "own kind" except in the most minimal and least meaningful senses ("carbon-based lifeforms," "DNA-replicating machines"). Robertson, as phil points out, is not aiming to enlighten others or elevate the discourse; he is pissing in it."

Think how reasonable thinking Democrats must feel about Bill Clinton..... (or is "reasonable thinking Democrats" an oxymoron? ;))

You say that you'll stick to not breaking the 11th commandment unless your criticism is warranted

Actually, I said unless it's *necessary*. There's an important difference. I don't think it's really necessary for me to make a point of criticizing Robertson's remarks--the fact that I'm not sticking up for him should say enough.

"The fact that I'm not sticking up for Hillary Clinton says enough." No, it doesn't. Actually, I should have outright condemned Clinton's "plantation" remarks against Republicans because her statement is both repulsive and untrue.

Well, Robertson is not a US Senator with probable Presidential aspirations (although he did throw his hat into the GOP primary awhile back, if I recall), nor was his remark repulsive or untrue--it was an off-base application of scripture to current events, which is a common occurrence for Robertson.

Clearly, deciding whether or not "friendly fire" is necessary must be a case-by-case decision.

Eric,

What do you mean that Robertson's comments weren't untrue or repulsive? Do you actually agree with Robertson's sick, perverted and demented comments about Sharon? If those are your values, I'm more than a little surprised, because Robertson's words could have just as easily been uttered by Satan himself.

I don't know if I'd go that far in describing the comments, Joel. I disagree with Robertson's application of Scripture and especially with his un-humble way of making these sorts of proclamations, but the idea that God would move against someone who is acting against His plan is not out of bounds. The Bible clearly teaches that God sometimes does directly intervene to remove someone from the scene (i.e. "striking them down"). For example, there was Nebuchadnezzar in the OT, and Ananias & Sapphira in the NT.

"The Bible clearly teaches that God sometimes does directly intervene to remove someone from the scene"

Sure, but doesn't the Bible also teach that Satan also directly intervenes in the affairs of men? And doesn't the Bible also caution against 'false prophets'? Since these points of view regarding his comments roughly balance each other out and there isn't really any clear way, at least in this case, to tell on whose behalf Robertson is speaking, I think we're left with evaluating his comments outside of any Biblical interpretation. Which in this case leads us rightly to Joel's summation of 'sick, perverted and demented'.

"Since these points of view regarding his comments roughly balance each other out and there isn't really any clear way, at least in this case, to tell on whose behalf Robertson is speaking, I think we're left with evaluating his comments outside of any Biblical interpretation. Which in this case leads us rightly to Joel's summation of 'sick, perverted and demented'."

Not necessarily. We can't know whether Robertson's statements about the reasons for Sharon's illness are accurate. Robertson claims to be a born-again Christian, though, and at a point at which it becomes clear that he's in error, it's the responsibility of those in his fellowship to go to him, confront him with evidence of his error and give him the opportunity to repent. Cf. Matthew 18.

So, Eric, if I have a stroke you're going to post at ITA that it was God's retribution for my views on homosexuality?

Would you be willing to post a list of your relatives or loved ones who have died of disease or been killed in accidents or are disabled by stroke and such so I can put up a comment about what I suppose God was punishing them for?

All I can say is that you have seem to have a view that Christianity is rooted primarily in hate and judgment.

I think that invading Iraq was against God's will, but if Bush or Cheney keel over while in office, I won't be attributing it to God's judgment.

Joel, with all due respect I don't think you're reading me carefully. As I've said several times, I don't agree with Robertson's application of Scripture in this case or the loose-cannon sort of way he makes these kinds of remarks. Yet, if you read what Robertson actually said, I don't see any hostility expressed there. Greatly insensitive, yes...patently offensive, no.

I frankly find your criticisms of Robertson to be overwrought. The analogies you offer above are off-base, and I don't understand where your apparent anger towards me is coming from.

Even a person who belives that people really are killed, now and then, by God, as a punishment for their actions (or to "remove someone from the scene") should be able to admit that Pat Robertson still had no reason to believe that this is what happened to Sharon. There may be stories in the Bible about God killing people who disobeyed, but it skips a few logical steps to read these stories and then to say, "Well, that must be what happened here." (Those missing steps, phrased as the questions that would have to be answered, are as follows: "Are these stories true?" "Even if God has done this before, do we have any reason to believe that God still does it now?" "If God does kill some people who displease him, do we have any reason to believe that Sharon displeases him?" "If God does kill some people, and Sharon is the kind of person who God kills, do we have any reason to believe that what happened to Sharon is an example of God trying to kill this kind of person?")

"All I can say is that you have seem to have a view that Christianity is rooted primarily in hate and judgment."

If you read the Old Testament, Joel, you will find wrath and judgment, along with unexplained ethnic cleansing at the direct command of God, to effect His grant of land to His people.

The wonder of Jesus' birth, death and resurrection, with the reconciliation for those who accept God's gift of His Son's sacrifice as payment for sin, is not that God doesn't judge - it's that He chose to make a way for reconciliation to Himself in spite of our sin. That gift of forgiveness and cleansing provides God's grace to each one of us who accepts Him on His terms. It also brings with it the Holy Spirit to indwell us and give us the power to become conformed to the image of Jesus, as well as to convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgment.

None of that means that sin no longer exists yet, or that we shouldn't be concerned about what God wants to do in the world. He is still interested in what is going on here, according to the Bible, and whether you believe the Bible or not isn't really relevant, any more than whether you believe a plane is going to Cincinnati when it's really going to LA.

Eric,

Did God give Ronald Alzheimer's because of Iran-Contra? Did God cause Sirhan Sirhan to shoot Robert Kennedy? Would such claims be merely insensitive and not repulsive?

I'm confused. One place you write that what Robertson said is true (you actually said it wasn't "untrue" which to me means the same thing). Then you say he has misapplied Scripture. How can Robertson's comments about Sharon be both "not untrue", and a misapplication of Scripture?

I don't consider myself angry toward you. I was trying to drive home a point that if it isn't repulsive for Robertson to speculate that God caused Sharon's stroke, it wouldn't be repulsive for me to speculate as to why your friends or family were/are afflicted with various maladies.

I don't agree with you that Robertson expressed no hostility toward Sharon. I would insist that anyone claiming that God caused Sharon's stroke is extremely hostile toward Sharon.

Robertson's comments are in some ways more offensive than Hillary Clinton's because at least Hillary doesn't claim to be a spokesperson for the faith.

I view Robertson as a heretic who endangers the Christian faith by both his distortions and by using the faith to personally enrich himself. He is, to me, like a money changer in the temple.

lawyerchik1,

I don't disagree that judgment and wrath are part of God's working. But for fundamentalists like Robertson, those things, as opposed to grace and love, are the primary attributes of God.

I've read the OT a time or two. I've written previously that those who charge usurious interest will burn in hell, so no one can accuse me of ignoring the judgment issue entirely.

Also, I wanted to say something more related to the topic of the post: I agree with those above who do not consider Robertson to be on "our side." The best thing that a conservative or a Republican should be able to say about him is that he is useful, and it isn't even clear whether it would be accurate to say that. (We would have to balance what he has done to organize and register friendly voters against whatever damage he has done to the reputation of Republicans and conservatives, against any opposition that he has unintentionally mobilized, and against the loss of conservatives who may have had some sense, but who then listened to him.)

I think this makes him a special case: officially, he is on our side, but we know that he deserves our ridicule and scorn. I do not know what other examples of this triangulation you have in mind, but even though there are things that I do not like about Tom DeLay, for example, one of the reasons why Republicans/conservatives were generally slower and more reluctant to denounce him (when he too became the subject of unfavorable media attention) than they have been to attack Robertson is that DeLay is "nothing like that nut Pat Robertson," either. The degree to which we try to distinguish ourselves from people who are supposed to be on our own side, I think, depends both on the degree to which their words and actions are hurting our side, and on the degree to which their words and actions make it appear that they are not on our side at all. This isn't a strategy that individual conservatives have spontaneously employed -- Robertson's strange views just happen to make him feel, to conservatives, less like someone who is on "our side" and more like someone who deserves to be ostracized even if he were not a liability (but also because he is).

Reading Karl's comments, I have to say that I wouldn't have second thoughts about hiring him as my attorney.

Hugh Hewitt e-mailed me after the God Blog convention that Tom DeLay is a fine Christian fellow who is simply the victim of MSM bias. Hewitt made it clear to me that he considers Delay's ethical standards to be high and that Democrats are just out to get him and that if I just knew DeLay personally, I would see him in a positive light.

I'm confused. One place you write that what Robertson said is true (you actually said it wasn't "untrue" which to me means the same thing). Then you say he has misapplied Scripture. How can Robertson's comments about Sharon be both "not untrue", and a misapplication of Scripture?

Robertson's comments can't be fully known to be untrue, because they involve a particular *interpretation* of Scripture. I don't agree with that interpretation, but I could be incorrect. If he had said that Sharon was planning to hand over Jerusalem to the PLO, that would be untrue.

I was trying to drive home a point that if it isn't repulsive for Robertson to speculate that God caused Sharon's stroke, it wouldn't be repulsive for me to speculate as to why your friends or family were/are afflicted with various maladies.

If you had a specific Biblical reason for believing God had afflicted one of my family members (or allowed them to be afflicted) based on their actions, and you posted it on a blog, I would find it very insensitive, but not repulsive. Robertson was basing his comments about Sharon on the Bible.

I would insist that anyone claiming that God caused Sharon's stroke is extremely hostile toward Sharon.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't see any reason why a person can't legitimately say, "I really care about this person, but they were doing X, which I believe was against God's plan and therefore He allowed Y to happen to them."

Hewitt made it clear to me that he considers Delay's ethical standards to be high and that Democrats are just out to get him and that if I just knew DeLay personally, I would see him in a positive light.

For what it's worth, there is a person I know well and highly respect who also knows DeLay personally (though not closely) and has come to a similar conclusion. I tend to believe that DeLay's transgressions are not the result of intentionally breaking the law.

Sorry, Eic, but I see no difference between what the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" group) said about Matthew Shepherd and what Robertson said about Sharon.

I do try to be fair to you, but as I'm not able to see that we share either a common faith or similar life experiences, I just don't relate to what you are about. It certainly isn't about disliking you or being angry toward you, however.

If by "common faith," you mean we don't share the same persuasions in what I would consider non-essentials, OK. But I'm quite sure we agree on what most theologians would consider the essentials of the Christian faith.

"If by "common faith," you mean we don't share the same persuasions in what I would consider non-essentials, OK. But I'm quite sure we agree on what most theologians would consider the essentials of the Christian faith."

I'm beginning to wonder how much Catholics have in common faith-wise with certain Protestant denominations. We long ago rejected the idea that ours is a violent God whose vengeance needs satisfying in some way. I wonder about a minister (and his religion) who wonders aloud about sacrificing people so as to stave off divine wrath...

If I may also point out, you also worship Mary, which is a direct violation of the first Commandment......

That isn't to say that no Catholics are true Christians; it's just that there are certain elements of Catholic doctrine that are in direct contradiction to the Bible's express teaching on the subject and derive their basis more from tradition than Scripture.

lawyerchik1

Thank you for reminding me that certain Protestant Denominations do not consider me to be Christian.

And please allow me to point out, Catholics do not worship Mary as a God, but as the Mother of our Saviour, we believe she should get some props.

And if you are going to quote scripture to me to back up your arguments, please be aware (although I am somehow sure you are already aware of this), that we Catholics, like Jews, do not believe in literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

You're welcome.

BTW, how do you rationalize praying to Mary in light of the New Testament Scripture which says that there is mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus? If that Scripture is true (and I'll save you some time: it is), then why do Catholics pray to Mary and saints, who are human and not deity at all?

That should have been "one mediator." [typing too fast....]

lawyerchik1

First of all, thanks for admitting to the intolerance of some with the, "you're welcome."

To answer your question. Catholics don't pray TO the saints or Mary, we pray WITH them.

I've answered yours, maybe you can answer mine. Isn't it perhaps dangerous when people of a particular group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority?

It's always a problem when someone takes an attitude of superiority instead of humility; the difficulty with your question is not in its words but in the implication that anyone who holds to the authority of Scripture is somehow claiming to be superior to those who do not. The only appropriate answer is, what does the Bible say? If the response to that question is that you don't believe the Bible is any authority, then there is nothing further to discuss. That's not seeing in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority; it's simply deferring to the authority of the Bible.

For a truly thought-provoking article on this topic and related ones raised in this thread, please see: http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=9.

Eric,

I consider you to be a Christian and don't question your faith commitment. What I mean is that I never seem to agree with or recognize your applications of Scripture on the basis of God's providence or grace. I don't recognize as the Messiah the image of Christ you present. We probably do agree on what the essentials of faith are, but we don't agree on how to apply them or what they mean for our dailing living, it seems. I may be being unfair to you, but your writings indicate to me that you see God primarily in legalistic terms, whose emphasis is mainly on judgment and wrath. To me, those matters are greatly subordinate to God's love. I don't view you as a person who possesses significant amounts of empathy. Again, that may be a very unfair rap, but at least I'm being honest in sharing my views. Upon the death of my nephew in a car accident, many people told me that it was God's will and my reply to them was that their words were entirely of Satan and not of God. That has chilled my personal relationships with several people, but I was determined to openly reject what I consider to be heretical teaching about God's providence.

I do expect and look forward to seeing you in heaven, where our communications will be perfect and blessed.

I may be being unfair to you, but your writings indicate to me that you see God primarily in legalistic terms, whose emphasis is mainly on judgment and wrath.

That's not an accurate picture, but in fairness to you, you probably read me at my most passionate when I am disagreeing with someone who is (in my opinion) downplaying God's righteousness and/or the moral requirements set forth in Scripture.

To me, those matters are greatly subordinate to God's love.

I disagree. God's love is in perfect balance with His righteousness. It is not God's nature to overlook sin. God's gracious provision of Christ as our Savior provides the necessary payment for our sins, but those who reject Christ are most definitely subject to God's wrath. (Ephesians 2:3 and Romans 1:18)

I agree with you 1000%, Eric - focusing on God's love without acknowledging His holiness is as dangerous a position as focusing on His judgment and wrath without also seeing His grace.

I was thinking of the Bible's repeated references to God as Father: many people with children (and even many without children) recognize that while a parent may punish his child for disobedience, or have to allow his child to go through the pain of medical treatment or heartbreak, the parent's love is an ever-present undercurrent for all of those things. If there is no repentance, there is punishment....

"those who reject Christ are most definitely subject to God's wrath."

My Jewish wife would not be too impressed with that comment.

Nor my Church. The late Pope John Paul II referred to Jews as “the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God.” That statement is entirely consistent with our Church's teaching regarding God’s faithfulness to His covenant with the Jews.

In 2002, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reminded Catholics that we shouldn't evangelize Jews because they "already dwell in a saving covenant with God."

If you look at Romans 8-11, the Apostle Paul sets out Israel’s place in relation to Jesus Christ and God’s reaching out to the Gentiles. He quotes from the Old Testament to explain the status of the Jewish people as a nation, as well as the need for them to recognize and accept the Messiah God sent to them.

Hosea 2:23: “I will call those who were not my people, ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”

Hosea 1:10: it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, 'you are not my people,' there they shall be called sons of the living god."

Isaiah 10:22: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; for the Lord will execute his word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.”

Isaiah 1:9: “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, we would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.”

Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
just as it is written (in Isaiah 28:16), “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Here is an interesting article here (http://www.levitt.com/essays/israel-church.html) that discusses the topic better than I can do here. I think the conclusion I want to make, though, is that throughout human history, God’s plan for reconciliation to Himself has been identical: faith in God. Those who died before Christ’s death, burial and resurrection were saved by their faith in what God had promised to do (almost all BTW were Jews), and those after Christ’s death, burial and resurrection are saved by their faith in what He did. That’s the only way for anyone to be reconciled to God, and any individual or denomination or religion that says otherwise is just wrong.