|
17 jul 06 "Why is Pat Robertson still legal?" i like these political questions; they're good for generating lots of crap with relatively minimal effort. i'll rephrase: "why is pat robertson (and other public religio-political leaders) still taken seriously by certain sectors of society?" the answer is both long and rambling. pat robertson, along with osama bin laden, is a religious and political figure. historically, church has always been affiliated with state. i don't feel i need to provide examples here, because this is so ubiquitous and well-known. but, i will anyway: papal states, caliphates, the aforementioned "pat and osama" (sounds like a good sit-com), aztec priests, medicine men, mullahs, and others. in fact, all government leaders are in some way affiliated with religion, and all religious figure are in some way affiliated with secular leadership (can you imagine an atheist united states president?). often, they're one and the same. jefferson was an atheist, but he was quite unique, even among the "founding fathers". statehood is the goal -- religion is a means to an end. not that religion was conspiratorily set up this way, but directed spirituality, to the point where spirituality was no longer spiritual, turned out to be an excellent way to keep people in line and in accordance with state goals (eliminate the possibility of revolution -- you know...opiate of the masses and all). religion is appealing to people because if they embrace it they don't have to think anymore, and the uncertainties, subjectiviy and ambiguity of reality gets closed off. it's interesting to note that the effects of religion are very simliar to the effects of conservatism -- both are primarily concerned with sheltering the consciousness from unpleasant realizations (the world is fine! just don't look at it too closely! we're afraid of what we might find!). pat robertson is a moral voice -- he tells us what is right, and what is wrong. this is irresistable, because it's so simple. if you know what's good and what's bad, then you can focus your energies on the good, and be rewarded personally via the ego and in the afterlife. god makes life seductively simple, and gives it "purpose" -- god becomes the "one thing" for people, something on which they can always rely. drugs are another good "one thing", one that a lot of people choose. for the drug addict or the monotheist, purpose is spelled out -- you know what to pursue, and you know what contains universal salvation. the path in life is clear, and this is seductive in the face of a "purposeless" reality (but not one that excludes joy). we must ask: what's the purpose of purpose? i think there is none, and that if one has no reason to "be", one should simply "be". the seduction of religion claims people in their childhood and youth, before their reason is fully intact. once they're old enough to know better, giving up that one purpose would be too terrible to imagine; they'd have to face the void. god would be dead. they'd turn to heroin. the way this question is phrased sort of gives me pause, even though it's in fun; it's demonstrative of the way an educated, wealthy class marginalizes a parochial, poorer, and insular class. it's an example of the "total intolerance" that's beset the country, one that was well-demonstrated in the infamous 2000 election split. perhaps there's more to the question than "why is pat robertson taken seriously by some?" considering it in its literal form might provide some telling results. why is pat robertson allowed? allowed by whom? of course, everyone recognizes the irony of the american left's intolerance for other ideas, when tolerance is supposedly an essential part of their credo. whether or not i agree with or support pat robertson isn't important to consider here -- i'm just pointing out behavior patterns. Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history. -- p. robertson ignore the comparisons to hitler, the bit about "worse than any other minority," or the specific entities to which he narrows the bame. but the sentiment is true -- there's an angry intolerance of the christian right. of course, there's angry intolerance of the secular left, but i don't like the way the latter tends to think they're "above it all" when they're resorting to precicely the same thought-patterns and tactics. even if pat robertson and christian fundamentalists cannot and should not be tolerated because their mindset has been demostrated to harm the world, they should at least be understood. what motivates the right, and what motivates desert monotheism? furthermore, why are they so intimately intertwined? these are human beings, and their motives aren't alien. pat robertson represents a standard -- something people can say is "right", or "correct", and by which they can judge others. for instance, "family values". it sounds great -- who isn't for family values? but we have to consider: are all families alike, and do all of them find identical acts and words to be desirable? what are these "family values" that pat robertson and the like-minded espouse? not everyone does, can, or is willing to measure up. based on this, some universal "family values", it's easy to identify both ideal and anti-hero, a dualism that's central both to religion and, unfortunately, american politics. a proposed universal morality -- "what is good" vs. "what is bad" -- has hurt untold numbers of people. leaders, both religious and political, use morality and dualism to rule over societies and ensure their compliance. i just read up a little on pat robertson's words, and they're pretty amazing -- calling for the assassination of the venezuelan president, denouncing hindus as demon worshippers who should be kept out of the united states, stating that sharon's stroke was god's retribution for giving land away to the palestinians, accusing mohammed of being a wild-eyed fanatic, robber, and brigand, and declaring that the events of september 11th were god's retribution for liberalism and homosexuality. he sounds, to me, like someone with a great deal of humor value, but not someone who'd be taken seriously by anyone. this isn't the case, though -- he has an enormous following; his television show, the 700 club, is broadcast on a major network, and was watched by 863,000 viewers -- more than CNN primetime (source). a great deal of america thinks this way, apparently. but instead of condemning them as 100% idiots, we should try to understand them. partly, a problem is a lack of education. with education comes the realization that the world isn't such a simple place, and that the answers aren't as unilateral or unambiguous as we'd hoped. education brings with it "an exposure to the light", something that conservatism hopes to avoid. conservatives don't want to know, because that would undermine the fantasy world that's grown up in their minds: "this is the way the world is!" this is a sentiment that's echoed in religion, and is the reason the religious man is often not a thinking man; he's told what to think, what to believe, and is discouraged from self-discovery. pat robertson is an american christian ayatollah, essentially. islam is a young religion, comparatively, so we expect from it some growing pains. when christianity was young, it was rabid and violent as well (crusades, inquisition, witch-burning, etc). christianity has calmed down over the years and become more liberal -- that is, until fundamentalist ideas sprang up in reaction to christian modernism (a 19th century movement to reconcile christian creed with science and contemporary philosophy, employing non-literal, creed-uncentered, personal, and flexible interpretations of scripture). fundamentalism is an unfortunate development, because it severly tarnishes the outsider's portrait of christianity. islamic fundamentalism is the same way. monotheism and conservative leadership are bedfellows, and are appealing to many americans because they don't have to think in lieu of a drastically simplified morality and world view, one that's broadcast and presented by a infallible religious and political leadership and creed. this is why people tune in to the 700 club every morning, and why pat robertson holds significant influence on (and reflects) american thought. but we really have to watch our language -- statements like "why isn't pat robertson illegal?" undermine the credibility of reasonable critics; it's an oversimplified morality, just like monotheism and conservative politics. we're all human, and this view is appealing, no matter what form our gods and leaders take. |
ask a question