I completely agree with you, but I just want to throw into the pot the fact tha Pat Robertson also publicly opposed giving black people the right to vote in South Africa. I think that makes him a deluxe douchebag all by itself. I guess I have o learn to be more tolerant.
This is classic, and funny as shit. Down in the ads thing at the bottom of the screen, the very first ad says “Religion Gone Amok”. How appropriate.
Someone mentioned Robertson’s war record. Here it is. Just below it, is Robertson’s sterling record on what another person (the one with the Charlie Chaplin moustache) might have called “the black question”.
DIdn’t Robertson claim to be some sort oif “war hero”?
http://www.atrueword.com/index.php/article/articleprint/42/-1/2/
for many of Pat’s supporters, when he delivers his impassioned homilies on these issues, he speaks from a position of profound moral authority. Pat is, after all, a veteran of Korea, who served his country in combat. When he says that the “Moslems” are secretely plotting a mass takeover of America, it has some credibility with the millions that follow him. Pat is, after all, a true patriot who fought for his country.
Or did he?
Pat has long claimed to have been a Korean vet who saw active duty. Such stories formed an important part of Pat’s narrative during his run for President in the late 1980s. However, according to a Time Magazine article in November 3, 1986 and a Newsweek report dated February 22, 1988, this is completely untrue.
In January 1951, Robertson had left San Diego on the USS Brekinridge, along with some 2,000 other marines. When the ship stopped in Japan, Robertson did not continue to Korea. Former Rep. Pete McCloskey was on the ship with Pat and notes that his "single distinct memory is of Pat, with a big grin on his face, standing on the day saying something like, ‘So long, you guys - good luck’, and telling us that his father (Democratic Senator A. Willis Robertson) had got him out of combat duty”. The entire story of Robertson’s escape from active duty and the lie he has built is documented in McCloskey’s book, The Taking of Hill 610 And Other Essays on Friendship.
Robertson was then assigned to the role of looking after the alcohol for the troops. After complaints about Pat’s failure to do anything of significance to the war effort except shuttle whiskey between Japan and Korea, Robertson was eventually assigned to Korea. However, as court documents obtained by the New Republic magazine show, Robertson became drunk, and in a violent rage attempted to smash his way through the door of the complaining officer to get to him. Robertson had to be restrained by several other soldiers.
Former Rep Pete McCloskey went on to label Robertson an “absolute fraud” and a liar. Congressman Andrew Jacobs of Indiana, and one of Robertson’s shipmates aboard the Breckinridge also joined the attack. Jacobs had served in Korea whilst Robertson was in Japan, and had been wounded in active duty. When Robertson labeled Jacobs as a man who was “soft on communism”, Jacobs went to the press with the truth behind Pat Robertson.
This brought more marines to the fore who verified the story that Robertson, despite his claims to the contrary, had never seen combat duty in Korea. It also brought a massive amount of evidence, in the form of letters penned by troops to their families, which testified to the veracity of both Jacobs and McCluskey’s claims.
One of Pat’s contemporaries in Japan, Leo T. Cronin, Former Corporal in the US Marine Corp, penned a letter to the Marin County (California) Coastal Pilot on February 15, 1988 – just three weeks before the trial date. He described Pat as attempting to stand on the bodies of all those dead American soldiers in Korea, and as a man so “loose with the truth, so lacking in grace, and so dishonourable”.
…
Robertson has used his position to oppose civil rights legislation, such as the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Action and the 1991 Civil Rights Act. He termed the Civil Rights Act of 1985 “one of the most frightening pieces of legislation that has been brought up.”
In February, 2001, ten black employees initiated a suit for racial discrimination against Pat’s organization. They alleged they had been treated with “Jim Crow-style segregationist rules” and been excluded from company-sponsored “prayer sessions”. In March, 2001, these complainants were joined by two more Black employees alleging racial discrimination. In the same month, one white employee filed suit for unfair dismissal claiming he had been fired by Pat’s organization after he refused to spy on the black employees.
Robertson has frequently slurred prominent African-Americans in the Clinton administration, for instance terming Clinton’s nominee as assistant attorney general for civil rights, Lani Guinier a “quota queen”; a derogatory reference to the quota system designed to ensure fair representation of minorities in employment.
Like many other conservative Christians, Robertson had a soft spot for apartheid in South Africa. At the height of the apartheid era, he was one of its chief apologists in Christian circles. “I’ve been to South Africa,” he said. “I know we don’t like apartheid, but the blacks in South Africa, in Soweto, don’t have it all that bad.” During the 18th March, 1992 screening of his 700 Club, he said, “Again, I think ‘one man one vote,’ just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.”
This bastard actually had the gall to run for president. Newt Gingrich praises him. Bush fawns all over him. What he really needs is a big dose of “shut the fuck up”. He needs to have the cable companies and broadcastion networks refuse to give him any airtime. He deserves all the hate that can be mustered.
Oh come on! Where are all the apologists and defenders of this mighty war hero, this great prophet, this messenger of God’s divine love and compassion? Where are the demands for understanding and mercy for this shit stain on the world, this festering boil on the ass of humanity? Where are his legions of minions? What’s the matter? Can’t anyone defend this scumbag? Won’t anyone defend this scumbag? Where did everybody go?
I don’t think there’s anyone on the SDMB that cares for Robertson; true cultural conservatives are rare hereabouts.
In one of the great ironies of the intersection of church and state, Sen. Robertson won his seat in a primary race against State Senator William J. Spong, whose cousin in the clergy you may have heard of. (Cf. Here I Stand, pp. 144-5)
This one, the retired bishop?
A Statement from The Rt. Rev’d John S. Spong on the death of Matthew Shepard
If it’s the same Spong, he pits people pretty darn good.
That’s the man, the Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, retired Bishop of Newark. 
I know him personally extremely casually, and we have a couple who are close mutual friends (he married them in the first church he was rector of when he was a young priest, and remains in touch with them; they now attend the same church as Barb and I, and we’ve become fairly good friends).
I’m not talking about constitutional rights, and I still don’t understand what you’re talking about. Of course somebody “gets to” have problems with all of those things.
I guess your concept of “getting to do something” is different of mine.
To be honest, I wasn’t thinking of outright bashers when I wrote my post, I had in mind the ones who weren’t so far gone. I’m not going to defend my Fred Phelps comment because I guess I don’t really stand by it.
But I don’t have any problems at all with the stuff in your last paragraph. I don’t think that contradicts anything I believe. You were talking about hating those people, and non of those things = hate.
FWIW, I think Pat Robertson is more evil than Fred Phelps. Phelps’s beliefs are more evil, but at least he’s not deceptive about them, unlike Robertson.
As reprehensible as Pat Roberson is, it’s very difficult to top Phelps in pure, malicious evil. I actually try not to use Phelps as an example of homophobes anymore, because (believe it or not) I feel it’s unfair to homophobes. As much as I feel homophobia is a morally bankrupt position deserving of scorn and opprobrium, Phelps exsists on an entirely different level of hell. He’s a sociopath and a sadist, who, IMO, attacks gays not because he has a genuine “moral” opposition to homosexuality, but because he derives a sense of satisfaction and pleasure from harming other people.
This is an expose written for Kansas newspaper on Phelps, which was the subject of a lawsuit when the paper tried to bury it fearing lawsuits from the Phelps clan. It paints about as perfect a picture of evil in human form as I’ve ever read outside a biography of a serial killer. If it were someday discovered that Phelps had some bodies buried under the floor boards of his house, it would not surprise me in the slightest.
Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and their ilk are about the lowest sort of human scum there is, but at least they’re still human. Phelps is something else entirely.
It’s cool between us. I never suggested you would defend Phelps, even on a double dog dare. He’s “special”. But, he is also so obvious. Others, are more smooth, more persuasive, more skilled in wrapping their hate in righteous sounding packages - they are the dangerous ones. Again, Robertson ran for president and people actually wanted him (even though he is crazy too). That should scare all of us. As far as the ones who aren’t too far gone, maybe you’re right, but I’d rather they just got over it, or at least kept it to themselves. They can think whatever they want, but when they act, we have a big problem. When the talk incites someone else to act, we have a problem. When someone does act, and they blow it off or take the attitude “he deserved it”, we have a problem. We had the “moral majority”, now we have some mutated family somethihg-or-other. It’s the same people doing the same hate mongering. Thats’ what - 20 years already? And it was going on even before Falwell’s “moral whatever”. After a while, it gets old.
You’re damned because of a “situation” you never volunteered for (God hates you and yer gonna burn). Nobody just wakes up and decides to turn gay. If you’re too obvious, you catch hell in school. You may catch hell or be disowned by your own family. You have to hide it in order to get work. You have to hide it so the local “tough guys” don’t trash you. None of it happened to me, but it has happened to others. I have enough “New Yawk Eye-talian” hardhat, or redneck in me that “passing” is easy. I really do like fast bikes, guns, monster truck smashathons, fishing, American Chopper, big hemi engines, Junkyard Wars, all the really cool stuff. Others are not so lucky, and they pay for it. They should not have to pay for anything, they don’t deserve it. They shouldn’t have to worry about some problem that belongs to the other guy.
Was that last night?
Phelps is certainly more malicious. He’s much more hateful. He’s practically the physical embodiment of hate. I’ve read that expose before, and it’s horrific stuff. You’re right.
However, in terms of actual harm done, it seems to me that Robertson has done more harm on a larger scale. At least Fred Phelps is honest, Robertson is deceptive. I don’t think he cares about anyone except himself, and he’ll take advantage of other people’s trust to fulfill his own self-interest.
Two different kinds of evil, and Phelps is the worse, but IMO Roberts is the more dangerous. Reading on, it looks like SteveG1 is making the same argument…
That’s fair. I guess it comes down to: don’t respond to hate with hate. The post where you suggested that was a little alarming.
Here’s an even better way to say what I think:
I believe that it’s best that you (or anybody) treat them better than they want to treat you.
I think that’s a very important point. If you don’t think so, I’ll try my best to explain it. What follows is this:
To be able to do this successfully, you really need the proper attitude inside. Therefore, I think you (or anybody) should have more goodwill toward them than they have toward you. This one needs further clarification- what I mean here is that you do not necessarily have to think better of Phelps or Dobson or some jerk who harasses you. What’s important is that for the next person you meet who happens to be anti-gay but doesn’t try to be hurtful to you- try not to judge that person right away, and try not to hold them with the same contempt that you might hold with others who have done more hateful things.
I hope nobody gets the wrong idea from what I’m saying. I know I come off as preachy in this thread, but I’m honestly not trying to act morally superior and look down on people from a high horse. And I certainly hope that everyone understands that I don’t perfectly follow the morals I’ve written about here.
I totally agree with you here. I still have that “What’s Gaybashing Like?” thread bookmarked. Reading that was the thing that made me finally become pro gay. I read it an decided that my personal hangups were irrelevant compared to the horrible situation for gay people, and even if the bible does condemn homosexuality, it’s irrelevant to God compared to the need to help these people.
I’m skeptical and cynical. Thinking happy thoughts does not make them go away, and neither does being nice. They see that as weakness. However, when the press jumps on them for saying stupid things, they change their tune fast. It looks, from the historical and well documented results, that the best approach is to attack and crush them in the newspapers, television etc - Every time they say some spiteful things, start another counter attack and call them on it. It would be perfectly legit, because it would be the truth - hang them with their own words. Another good thing as Newsweek mentioned, would be for the networks to refuse them any airtime. We don’t need to play nice or be on the defensive all the time, it never worked. We need to get in their face and axpose them for the lying hateful jerks that they are. Keep THEM on the defensive, keep THEM backpedalling and refuting their own words.
Although this is true, it nonetheless is not the most effective means. As an early convert to support, I’ve found that what won me and continues to win others to recognition that your cause is right is not polemic rhetoric answering other polemic rhetoric, but calm, firm response saying, “You are in error. This is right because…” When enough people come to see the validity of your arguments, you’ve won. And you win them by taking the moral high ground.
Well, Poly, you’re not everyone. And I would think you’d been participating in this board long enough to realize that there are some people who do NOT respond to calm, firm debate. In fact, there are some people who interpret calm debate as arguing from a position of weakness. Those are the people that I have chosen to give up on, debate wise. I’m not going to “seduce” a proudly ignorant homophobe with calm firmness, so I will instead try to communicate to him that HIS is the position of weakness; that HE’S the one whose attitudes place him in the closet.
Is there not a way to be aggressive without being too aggressive? Wouldn’t achieving unity with most who are opposed to you be the best goal to reach? Maybe I’m hoping for a different end result than you guys. There will always be homophobes, just as there are still racists, but I think of the enemy not as people so much as a larger societal prejudice, which is eroding.
Precisely what I meant as the goal. Exposing homophobes as the hatemongers and often hypocrites they are is probably laudable, but the end to be pursued should be the conversion of the weight of popular opinion, which is slowly but surely coming round to your side. Spiteful polemics will IMO retard rather than advance that change, no matter how cathartic it may be to the anger in one’s soul.
You’ll never win Fred Phelps; you already have Baker. But wouldn’t it be nice if 90% of Topeka agreed with her rather than him.