A few words on Brother Pat

   I've been asked to say a few words about the recent statement by Pat Robertson. Not the attempted retraction, just the original. As a military strategist, his idea is neither complex nor original, there was a lot of talk of the same such strategic elimination before Operation Desert Storm. Whatever your feelings on the first Gulf War, President Bush the Elder likes a good show as well as anyone, and he would not be dissuaded at that time(1).

   Robertson a loon? Hardly, but not necessarily what you look for in a religious leader. Not as glib and hateful as Swaggart(2) remarking he would likely murder a homosexual that "looked at me that way", and then proceed to conceal that information from G0d; but on the same wavelength. Their statements belie a glaring misunderstanding of the Creator they have supposedly entrusted with their faith. The all-seeing, all-knowing G0d of "In the beginning" - whom Protestants, Jews, Catholics, and Muslims all claim as our origin - is apparently not considered quite so omnipotent by these two sweethearts. "By whatever means necessary(3)" is not a biblical axiom, it is the antithesis of what these two fellows usually blather about from their ivory towers; odd that they can turn on a dime when they know what is right for G0d better than He does. "Break my rules to further my agenda" is not contained within the pages of any holy scriptures, although it may be scribbled in the margins of a few.

   As a private citizen, Robertson has every right to make a rather bland and obvious observation. His position as a leader of a religious organization, should have caused him to consider the effects of such a statement on his congregation. Then again, Robertson is not the most stable of pulpit denizens, he has repeatedly claimed control over hurricanes through prayer. Why he doesn't simply ask his congregation to pray that certain people die I really don't know, and I'm not being sarcastic.

   The most important single reason for separation of Church and State is simply that religious scriptures designed to address the individual on how to live his/her life can not be applied to how a community of millions (that includes non-believers) governs itself. Robertson doesn't seem to grasp this, as his armchair military strategies illustrate; he also doesn't seem to understand which side of the aisle he represents. Whether scriptural ideals and propositions about government can be utilized successfully in the modern era is more of a question for religious dictatorships than the United States, still a democracy after all these years. --r-










(1)Neither would Bush the Younger have allowed any such actions two years ago, when the opportunity to spin a costly nonsensical action in Iraq into an election win loomed over his less-than-popular Presidency. Spending their presidencies trying to 'look Presidential' is the legacy of the Bushes.

(2)"I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell G0d he died." You are your Brother's keeper Jimmy.

(3) Trying to steer clear of asking whether the ends justify the means, which they often do and must be carefully assessed before such an action as the assassination of a foreign leader or random randy homosexual.