Meyer's Inbox: On Rev. Pat
Like to read other people's mail? Well, have at it. The Against the Grain inbox is open for your perusal. And by the way, this is not a blog.
God, Judges & Reverend Pat
No waffling here. This column stirred up some rather passionate responses on both sides of the issue from our readers. Pat Robertson seems to have a somewhat polarizing personality. And one reader wishes I had never been born.
"Rev. Robertson's God doesn't want to destroy America, but Robertson seems to have no doubts that unless He is appeased, al Qaeda and 9/11 will be small potatoes.
I'd like to know what the victims of 9/11 and al Qaeda think about that."
It doesn't matter what the victims of 9/11 think about it. It's the Biblical truth. Pat Robertson is correct. 9/11 was a wake-up call. Think about it: America is the most powerful nation in the world. When the most powerful nation in the world starts deviating from God's will (abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.), God can and will correct us. This is the absolute truth. I'm sorry if this offends you.
Michael Garcia
I agree with Rev. Robertson's evaluation of al Qaeda. I agree whole-heartedly with his remarks about the courts in the US.
It is time for the Judges in this country to learn that they only have one duty and that is to help enforce the law of the land and not try to make laws. We have a Congress and an executive branch to make laws. It is time for the Congress and the President to start making the checks and balances work.
David Gilliam
Mr. Meyer, with all due respect, I agree with the Reverend Pat Robertson. I'm 35 years old and every day I listen to the national news, my American dream to have a family slides towards a nightmare. Why would I want to subject my loved ones to a life where they have no rights to pray, read the Bible, protect life, and most importantly love and worship God openly? Morality and religious freedom must be restored in America. In addition to al Qaeda, there are many other terrorists living in America that were born and raised here. As citizens, we can protect ourselves against all of these terrorists. Liberal judges, on the other hand, have the law wrapped around their fingers and we cannot as easily protect ourselves from the consequences of their judgments. Personally, I have experienced some of the changes that have taken place and feel quite sad.
Cristina
I read your column, "God, Judges & Reverend Pat" with interest. I think you're missing something pretty important in your end-line. The key question isn't "what the victims of 911 and al Qaeda think about that." You've missed the point almost entirely. The question should be, "what do the perpetrators of 911 and al Qaeda think about that." I think they would substantially agree with the Rev. This "wrath of God" stuff didn't originate with Pat. It runs all through all three of the major religions that came out of the Middle East. You can't help the situation by sneering at these kinds of beliefs. THAT kind of arrogance helped get us into this situation in the first place. On reflection, I think that's sort of what the Rev. was trying to say (in his own goofy way). If you really think that conservative preachers like Pat don't bleed for 911 victims, you're not looking deep enough.
John Oback
Obviously, you oppose Robertson's views. Obviously, you are not religious (Christian is the term, as Robertson comes from a Christian standpoint) and are not a student of the Bible. That is where Robertson comes from. Not from a place of self righteous superiority as you would have it, in order to blast it. Self righteous is a necessary term of inference be able to destroy his statements. Were it string theory, would you be so easily able to poo poo it?
He quotes Biblically. He doesn't say "I" think this and believe that from his own thoughts. His statements are Bible based.
He pursues his beliefs. Not bending with or following the popular. How many of us would not be here now had abortion been legalized many years earlier.
Hmmm... on second thought, with a little luck, you would be one of the "fetuses" that ended up in a trash can.
Have a nice day.
Bob Kerwin
Let's see; 100 years ago children were forced to work in factories, many of them crippled, or with permanently ruined health before they were twenty years old. Slaughterhouses regularly processed and distributed tuberculosis infected beef, because there was no regulation, the elderly often starved and died agonizing deaths because there was no Social Security, African Americans were open game for hate groups lynching and torture, the poor were imprisoned for simply being poor, and it does not take much imagination to reflect on the position of women back then. But by God we were a religious nation, If Mr. Robertson gets his way-this is the way we will be headed back to.
W.B. McWilliams
The right-wingers won't stop until they force a national religion upon us, like it or not. It is anathema to them that some Americans might chose to be Jewish, some to be Catholics and others might chose to honor none of the mainstream religions at all. As for the intent of the founding fathers: they were a bunch of slave-holding, women-degrading, immigrant-hating guys who did the best they could with their limited intellects. We are lucky they left the constitution open to changes, because we've had to make 'em lots of times in the past 200 years. The right is wrong.
Michael T. Heath
Does it ever occur to these self-perceived righteous people that many of their ancestors sacrificed much to come to this wonderful country to get away from just such governments (as they espouse), based on religious bigotry? A God who discriminates based on man-created labels, is at best, a flawed guide to justice and goodness.
Maysa Graham
So we won in Iraq, eh Pat? The tacit acceptance of this man's lunatic positions by, virtually the entire GOP, is very disturbing. But this sad, hate-filled man's quest for a 'Christian' theocracy is extremely dangerous. For him to quote Thomas Jefferson is insulting, and akin to Saddam Hussein quoting Gandhi!
Joe Huebner
I see no difference in Pat Robertson and the Taliban. They want society to move back hundreds of years to the days of a flat Earth, mandatory religious indoctrination, stoning of heretics, black magic, burning of witches at the stake, and holy wars. Are we finally seeing a great failure in American education system manifest itself?
The Lilliput Congress
Some personal criticism directed at me (and the media this week) - but I can take it. And no, I definitely don't believe that dipping into special interests' pocketbooks is perfectly acceptable. There was also a lot of discontent with arrogant politicians who have lost touch with the common guy.
Kudos to you and your associates for an outstanding analysis of the state of the Congress today!
I say that the kind of "Crap" that's being put out by our national legislators is not worth the kind of financial gain we, the taxpayers, are being forced to give them. We should demand better for our money that they so gratuitously pay themselves.
Obviously, there is absolutely no honor among the thieves we've put in our legislative houses.
Bob Arvin
The press is merely a "huge factor" in Congressional cannibalism? I'm sorry, you're in serious denial. Suppose I go hand out guns among poor folks hungry for consumer goods. Would I be surprised at the bloodshed? You wretches in the media not merely hand the "guns" -- the sound bite slander devoid of all moderating context -- to the pols hungry for personal success, you cock it and tell them where to aim, and you routinely encourage them to do their worst.
It is impossible for a decent politician to get a full and frank airing of his views on any subject, unless he's on C-SPAN or he writes his own blog. You TV people routinely hunt out the spiciest sound bite, the one that caricatures his position most outrageously, that is most guaranteed to push the debate into the realm of frantic froth, and then you cut them off. I can't remember the last time I heard more than 25 words in a row from the President's own mouth about any subject whatsoever on the tube. I get eight or nine words, then eight or nine paragraphs from some journalism-major network blowhard "explaining" to me what he meant, and smacking his or her lips over the expected response from the opposition.
If Congressional cannibalism is an obscenity -- and it is -- then you modern media folks are, simply, the biggest pornographers in that business.
I look forward to your demise as the Internet eats your lunch.
Christopher J. Grayce
You wrote: "Put aside the minutia, the charges and counter-charges, your own likes and dislikes for a moment and look at the story of Tom DeLay through this lens. There's no good outcome."
Are you suggesting that the behavior exhibited by Mr. DeLay should be tolerated? Do we abandon any pretense of ethics on the part of our politicians and open it up to anything goes? At what point does the exercise of power become criminal?
I'm surprised at this article, Mr. Meyer. You're usually heads above most other columnists in being able to cut to the heart of the matter. After reading this I'm left thinking that you believe dipping into special interests' pocketbooks is perfectly acceptable. Did I miss something?
Randi Gifford
Dick Meyer may want to keep in mind, that while Delay's import in the nation's history is limited, Dick Meyer's role will be non-existent.
Brian Goettl
I always read your columns with interest, and generally agree with what your opinions reveal. However, today's column, while to the point, misses a key ingredient. I believe that the electorate, today, has simply grown weary of the isolationism and arrogance that politicians seem to fall into. Most of those in Washington have lost touch with the common guy (unless that common guy belongs to a noisy group such as Focus on the Family or MoveAmericaForward). The blue/white collar, 9-5 American simply is sick to their stomachs of politicians whose only agenda is "get mine while the getting is good!"
DeLay, Hastert, and a plethora of pols today are more concerned with their own driven desires and greed than with the need to "serve the public" or their constituents. The reason Congress "eats its own" is that in some way, congress (as well as the media and the public) understand, viscerally, that the "own" of Congress deserve to be eaten. Where are the honorable men and women we deserve who should be in Congress (or the White House for that matter)? I think, honorable people shy away from politics because it is dirty, partisan, and self aggrandizing. Those who are honorable when they enter politics can't remain that way long.
Just my opinion. Keep up the good work.
Terry Tanner
Please, whether or not Delay is forced out of Congress has nothing to do with the development of true statesmen out of Congress. That is a stretch, even for you, and a very strange way to defend the indefensible.
The absence of statesmen is more a comment on cultural values than on anything Congress does. Courage, honor, truth are now culturally "quaint" - just the way Gonzales called the "Geneva Convention."
Deal with the values that produce people like Delay in positions of power in Congress and in corporate board rooms, and then you will have something to say.
Pat Raymond
Benedict, Absolutely
This column was relatively successful (get it? relatively, absolutely? never mind). Frankly, the more abstract or philosophic columns that don't have much to do with the week's headlines tend not to generate much incoming e-mail. Is that a sign I should avoid writing them? I'm reluctant to come to that conclusion. Thoughts? Send them in, please.
I found one comment in your Pope Benedict XVI analysis interesting. You wrote, "John Paul is so respected by non-Catholics because of his stand against communism in Eastern Europe."
True. However, you failed to mention John Paul's equally strong criticisms of, for lack of a better phrase, 'capitalist greed' focused only on money and never seeing the less fortunate among us.
Finally, you did not observe another John Paul theme which I, rightly or wrongly, have noted from his pontificate. Essentially that theme is condemning Christians voting for officials who pander to "Christian values" and whose governments, acting like piously posturing hypocritical Pharisees, wouldn't know the poor, the hungry, or the homeless.
Roger Hickman
Hopefully Benedict means what he says. I think you are correct however about incommensurability problem. The separated groups are talking at each other not dialoguing. It is as I said in a recent paper. It is as if Fundamentalism and Progressivism are like two children fighting in the back seat of car over their space. They quarrel and fight about their perceived world while the real world goes rushing past at breakneck speed.
Both are so intent in keeping the other from encroaching on their side, that they cannot see that they both belong to a paradigm that no longer describes how the world really is. Constructing dialogical communities: Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish and Muslim are the only way to move out of the mess.
In spite of the apparent momentum of relativism, communities of people speaking about what is truly real and truly important can change the direction of society. Simple moral discourse is possible when I am willing
not just to accept any and every idea as of equal value, but when I have to
listen to other ideas, evaluate and defend my own, and struggle to come to
common ground over hard issues.
I do believe there is a common ground "out there" and that common ground can be found in building relational communities. If we can stop the two kids in the back seat from fighting long enough, perhaps another option can be found. The world is rushing by. I think we need to stop long enough to say we need to talk.
Michael McAleer
You are a truly a man of courage taking on any form of religious topic at this most toxic of times. Great piece!
Again, you use common sense and clear eyes to view and comment on the new pope. Although I'm a peripheral Catholic (I don't go to church as often as I should), you mention that you're a Jew. Why did you feel it necessary to state your religious orientation? I couldn't care less if you worshiped house flies.
I don't know what sort of pope Benedict XVI will be. No one knows for certain, but John Paul II will be a tough act to follow.
Why? Because he was a leader. A real leader, not just some guy in the office. As a Catholic, did I agree with and follow all of his ministrations? No. In a world so full of bluster and so lacking in true leadership, John Paul was a uniter not a divider; a real world leader.
I hope Benedict will be able to somehow find a way to fill at least a portion of those leadership shoes; the planet needs the help. Absolutely.
Gordon Apons
I am disappointed in Cardinal Ratzinger's selection as Pope precisely because he quite the relativist himself.
He speaks strongly and clearly on some issues (abortion and homosexuality)and softly and obscurely on other issues (unjust war in Iraq and priestly pedophilia) of the same type - depending, it seems, on how his statements might effect the worldly relations of the kingdom of the Roman Catholic Church with powerful interests.
His recommendations about the national makeup and religious affiliation of the EU cause me to be reminded about the history of Popes in guiding the Church and the people of Europe in abuses of non-Christians in Europe and the Middle East through Crusades, Inquisitions, and acquiescence to genocide.
His challenge is to overcome the disillusionment that the Church has wrought among many of its followers - In essence the same disillusionment that Communism has wrought among many of its followers - in which many believe that the leaders of these movements are either profoundly insincere or severely ineffectual, or both.
I would hope that he would be willing to lead the Church away from its attachment to temporary worldly wealth and status and intolerance more towards the eternal true values preached by Christ and his apostles. But he may find this difficult, surrounded as he is by wealth and pomp, prestige and privilege.
Ed Ezell
The Devoutness Divide
Really interesting replies this week -- take the time to read them. Several readers made a very interesting point about the Devoutness Divide that I didn't: one key difference, politically, is between people who are libertarian in their faith and people who believe society and the law should reflect their personal faith.
I also want to say the word "devoutness" is not perfect as I used it. I imply that churchgoers are more devout than people who don't attend and that ain't necessarily so. I hope my fundamental point still came through. One of the very good blogs, Jeff Jarvis' buzzmachine.com called me on that last week.
I think you very subtly missed the real nature of the religious divide
in our country today. Or maybe in the world for all of human history. The real difference is between those who consider their faith as a personal moral guide, and those who consider their faith as a guide for judging and controlling others.
R. David Mursch
Dick Meyer is totally correct that the traditionalists and the modernists have a lot in common deep down. They are both trying to control the lives of others. The centrists, both religious/spiritual and secular, are just trying to live in peace with their friends, families, associates and all humanity. And, they are the majority in the world.
Ann Wolf
Missing the good old days is not the point. At a certain age most people begin missing the way things used to be.
The point actually is about faith. Secularists and modernists have put their faith in materialism, in other words everywhere but in God. The schism tells a tale of the difference faith makes but more importantly it tells of a God who is there and really is the way, the truth and the life, as He claims to be. Those who believe are devoted while the undecided, non-believers and liberal "believers" are simply as lost as can be.
Liberal believers have an external religion that can, indeed, be "used." The fact that they feel free to use their religion is a demonstration of the lack of faith, or simply the bad faith, they have in the source of their religion - God.
Those who have embraced faith (and thus God) cannot "use" their faith because it is internalized and is inherant in all they do. They "use" God only in the way we humans "use" air.
Just as one cannot be "a little pregnant" one either has faith or does not, is committed to the truths of the faith, or is not. Faith and non-faith result in irreconcilable world-views, a polarity that will be with us forever.
Poll results used to explain the '04 election are now being used by liberals to help them sharpen up their religious jargon for the '08 campaign. It won't work.
Mark Steven Zuelke
Thank you once again for a thought-provoking column.
The political divide between people of varying kinds of religious temperment is a symptom of a deeper conflict. The real struggle in the United States right now is between the authoritarians and the libertarians.
Authoritarians include both active and passive types. There are authoritarians who like telling others how to live. But there are also authoritarians who enjoy being told what to do. One type cannot exist without the other. In either case, people who are drawn to authoritianism are drawn in many ways, including both political and religious aspects.
So it makes sense that a person who attends a church that stresses strict obedience to a set of pre-defined rules would gravitate to political leaders who demand blind loyalty. Likewise, at the other end of the scale, a person who adopts a relatively non-conformist religious viewpoint is likely to prefer political leaders who stress tolerance for diversity of thought, which of course the authoritarians despise as "weakness."
I can concede that religiosity tends to reinforce political leanings and vice-versa, but I think that the more basic motivation comes from within the individual.
Steven Randolph
Making any statements or comments which could be construed as "anti" religious automatically starts you off with two strikes against you, like knocking mothers and apple pie. I just want to say that not liking the role that religion is unfortunately playing in today's political arena is not being against religion itself. Is it the gun that kills, or the people inappropriately using the guns that kills? Is religion inherently bad for politics, or is it the people who inappropriately use it that make it bad for politics?
For me, this not so subtle infusion of religion/faith into government decisions and policies rankles me even more because of the seemingly disregard of those who exist outside the traditionalist groups. And most importantly, those disregarded also include anyone without religious beliefs. Wasn't this country propelled into action for the right of religious freedom and freedom from other oppressions? Doesn't religious freedom also include the freedom not to have religious belief? Isn't our government supposed to be for all the people, not just for those of faith?
Religion is a very personal subject and can cause great emotion in some people. This emotion can sometimes cause people to make decisions or take positions that they otherwise might not take. Is this a good "hook" that "win at all cost" politicians can effectively exploit? You bet it is! Is this a practice that will be disastrous for our country? You bet it is!
Has this pendulum swung too far and will now start to swing back? I can only hope.
Ed Long
Being an atheist and living in Oklahoma, I get disgusted with all the
attention showered on Bush and the Republicans for their "Christian" values.
What is Christian about cutting back funding on Medicaid, veterans benefits,
and school program funding? Where is Jesus in the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians by American troops sent on the basis of a lie
about weapons of mass destruction? For that matter, where are the moral
values among those ordinary people who make such a big deal about them?
Oklahoma, the buckle of the Bible Belt, has among the highest rates of
divorce, spousal and child abuse, and unwed mothers in the country. Arkansas, Mississippi, and those other states that bleat about Jesus all the
time aren't far behind Oklahoma in its sorry statistics.
Religion may or may not be a crutch, but it's certainly no gauge of moral
conduct. In fact, it probably has virtually nothing to do with it.
Brian Hill
An interesting piece. You seem to be confusing terms, though. "Devout" and "traditionalist" are not the same thing. Many "modernists" are devout. Many "traditionalists" are quite liberal and vote for Democrats. I think perhaps the word that you are reaching for in describing pro-Bush voters who want to change other Americans' way of life is "fundamentalist." Fundamentalism is without any doubt tied to intolerance.
Using statistics to draw conclusions can also be risky. In my part of the country we have a great many Catholics who regularly attend very traditional church services. Only "devout" will describe them. Yet they are liberal, and nearly all Democrats. In addition, you have discarded Latino Catholics from your analysis, but I think that if you are going to make conclusions based on statistics it is important to include all members of the cohort you are examining.
I'll also wager that if you visit some parts of the country you'll find a great many very devout, church-going Protestants as well who are liberal and mostly Democrats -- for instance, Washington State and Oregon. I'll go further to wager that despite the high visibility of fundamentalist Jews, most American Jews (many of them extremely devout) are liberal and vote Democrat -- and its a good bet that very few Muslims voted for Bush.
I believe what the statistics describe is the extraordinary ability that
the White Evangelical Christian South has shown to organize, strike terror in the hearts of politicians and commerce, send their own "messengers" to Washington D.C., manipulate media, and fool vast numbers of fairly naive middle Americans who are frightened by the world, are working too hard to keep up with the news, and, as you quite rightly say, just want a return to the "good old days."
Lest I sound like I'm evoking conspiracy theories, let me point out that the
religious doctrine in which Evangelical Christians believe demands this
kind of political effort from them. What is at stake for them is not something silly and irrelevant like the welfare of the nation and the world, but "the Rapture." The only solution, I'm afraid, is better education for the rest of the country. We need to stop being so naive.
Cristi A. Cave
If you still want to send in an e-mail, you'll have to read a real column to find the address.