I agree with Jay Homnick when he states, below, that Pat Robertson, as a spritual leader and ordained minister, has a right to make claims about what God's will might or might not be.
However, I also believe that rights bring responsbilities. Given the necessary ambiguity of any spritual dimension behind secular events, it is incumbent upon leaders such as Pat Robertson to be highly careful and circumspect in the public claims they make about God's intentions in "managing" worldly affairs. In addition, given that evangelical churches have a less rigid structure than older denominations, it is particularly tempting for evangelicals to make such statements. God's will is such a serious matter, however, that one should be reluctant to say in public some things that one might well think and say in private, given that the incorrect attribution of motives to God could in itself be a serious offense against that very God.
This is something to which Robertson seems regularly to give far too little consideration.
I completely agree with your post. Robertson has the right to his opinion but it does not help his cause. Many already view the "right-wing extremists" as lunatics and then for him to try to advance a theory such as this continues to destroy his credibility. I think that Pat ought to get back to being a minister and stop trying to somehow intertwine prophesy and politics. He would be more believable.
ReplyDeleteHey, so, totally off topic, but do we get to ask Dr. London why he saw fit to include an indicted felon among the fellows at his institute? Eh? Eh?
ReplyDeleteBecause he didn't violate the natural law and that's the only one we conservatives care about! Well, we and MLK,Jr.
ReplyDeleteJust funnin' with you, James. The part I liked was the speculation about salary. I had NO idea that any non-presidential type in a think tank would get $150,000 plus.
Just funnin' with you, James. The part I liked was the speculation about salary. I had NO idea that any non-presidential type in a think tank would get $150,000 plus.
ReplyDeleteMan, a person under indictment lands a $150K fellowship at a think tank, and I can't even get the Public Policy Institute of California to consider me for a Research Assistant position. Life's just unfair that way.
I feel your pain, I can assure you.
ReplyDeleteOh, Scooter Libby. I thought someone was still whingeing about Elliot Abrams.
ReplyDeleteMr. Libby is not an 'indicted felon' -- a felon is someone who has been found guilty of a felony crime. The only way to be an indicted felon is to have been convicted of of one and then charged with another. I assume Dr. London hired Mr. Libby because Mr. Libby is worth his pay, which I must say is considerably in excess of Hudson paid me. In fact, it's in excess of what Hudson paid the entire first floor bullpen.
That said, I suppose it does not reflect well on my personal morals that my very first thought, on hearing the news about Doug Bandow and the Abramoff money, was Hey! I wrote those things for years and nobody tried to bribe me. What am I, chopped liver?