OK, help me out here. According to this Pat Robertson, noted in the US for his pro-life stance, says this re: China’s B/C stance:" I don’t agree with it, but at the same time they’ve got 1.2 billion people and they don’t know what to do, If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable."
So apparently, the issue is not “abortion is murder” but “some abortions are murder”?
Yes, directly he only says that he ‘doesn’t agree with their policy’, but he goes on to add qualifiers. Why do that if you strictly see abortion as murder, period?
No argument here. Robertson is a weasel (in a lot of ways…didn’t he try to predict the path of a hurricane according to God’s will awhile back?)
The reaction of various factions of the Republican right to the China episode is interesting to say the least. On the one hand, you have the Republican business community with strong economic ties, who are hesitant to rock the boat too much with China (and who insist that an economic relationship with China will positively influence the reform efforts). On the other hand, you have the cold warriors eager to rush weapons to the Taiwanese and engage in some serious sabre rattling.
I’m not sure where Robertson fits in with all of this…but he really fails to live down to my expectations.
I saw part of the interview mentioned and it seemed to me that Mr. Robertson was advocating that the US not interfere with the internal policies of China for fear of causing a backlash and the shutting down of US-China relations and any hope for liberalization of China’s political structure. He repeatedly said that he did not agree with the policy of forced abortions, but apparently does buy into the the overpopulation problem in China. I do not agree with him on this issue but in context his statements are easier to understand.
nope, still doesn’t jive to me. Yes, he was commenting on if the US should interfere w/China’s internal policies (begs the question of course of "why should we care what Pat thinks about that, since he’s not one of the select few determining US policy on the subject, but whatever).
and, yes, he kept repeating ‘I don’t agree with their policy’, but what he didn’t say is “even with their problem with overpopulation, abortion is still murder and still wrong”
The fact that he kept on referencing their overpopulation problem while saying “I don’t agree with it but” allows the implication that in this extreme case, it may be understandable, justifiable, ok or whatever your word of choice is here.
He takes the position “abortion is murder”, but in the case of China, it apparently is less of an issue because of their overpopulation problem. One wonders then, what other ‘qualifiers’ he’d be willing to admit to.
CHINA AND PAT ROBERTSON: Life Advocate (8/94) reported that Pat Robertson had startled his television audience by voicing acquiescence to the Chinese government’s forced abortion policy. American Life League wrote to Dr. Robertson requesting a statement of his position. In an August 30 letter to Judie Brown on this subject Dr. Robertson stated: "…I said I am opposed to abortion. I also said I am opposed to China’s policy of birth restrictions. At the same time, however, the United States cannot enforce selective morality throughout the whole world.
“As Christians our primary concern must be to get the Gospel to these people. In China there are 1.2 billion people, and most of them do not know Jesus. They deserve an opportunity to come to Jesus, and that is what I want to see happen.” (Reading: 8/30/94 letter to Judie Brown from Pat Robertson; “Pat Robertson: Personally Opposed But…?” Life Advocate, 8/94, p. 8)"
It seems from wring’s link that what’s really bothering Pat is the idea that the Chinese are selecting for male babies, thus the quote about there not being any women for male Chinese to marry in coming years. Perhaps Pat is worried that this will lead to an upsurge in homosexuality in China - and that won’t do at all.
Excellent find!!! beagledave!. We have the answer. Mr. Robertson apparently believes that it’s perfectly acceptable to “enforce selective morality” throughout the United States. interesting that he accepts the stance of “enforcing selective morality” at all, too. wow. I’m really impressed.
Eradicating pagans to make it easier to spread God’s word is consistent with Pat Robertson’s interpretation of the Bible. I have here a quote from the “700 Club” dated May 6, 1985.
Good grief, where’s my bucket?
The site where I originally found this quote has since been taken down, but there are many more goodies here, among other places.
Don’t you know that children and grandchildren are cursed for all eternity by their parent’s actions? I thought this was obvious to all right-thinking Americans.
So, I guess we’ll see Pat’s children and grandchildren in Hell.
I’m embarrassed to be associated with the same political grouping as this disgusing human being. He’s from a upper middle class background and very well educated, yet he has chosen to make a living by swindling the poor and uneducated in religious healing, which is simly a health care scam. Ugh!
I totally agree with his initial China comment. I’ve been in China. Economically, they can support an incredible population density, but the quality of life stinks. (Literally, as many high-rise apartments don’t have plumbing, so they come downstairs and dump their chamber pots into the street.) Their one-child policy is easy to criticize, but given their circumstances I think it’s reasonable. I don’t see an obvious alternative.
Anyhow, I don’t object to Robertson’s inconsistency. (“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” I hate him for taking advantage of society’s weakest members.
Inconsistency? That’d be like him ordering the Peking McNuggets instead of the McBurger at the McDonalds. “not regular or predictable, erratic”
no, this comes down to (IMHO) hypocrisy “professing beliefs, feelings, virtues that one does not hold or possess”. He’s very clear in the US that abortion is murder. plain and simple. Evil. The personal tragedies of thousands of American women who are making this painful decision do not sway him. But, in China, (where parenthetically, he has quite a bit of personal stock invested, according to the links posted), he’s not concerned about the evilness of the procedure, and unwilling to even call it evil, willing to allow it to go on with a ‘well, I don’t approve, but…’ with the implication that he can understand the rational. And, frankly his concern is not for the poor woman in the position of needing an abortion, but in favor of the state. grrrrrrrrrr.
Make no mistake, I understand the Chinese rational as well (not that I approve of forced abortions, but then again, I’m not in the practice of enforcing my personal morality re: abortions onto others). But, I also understand and appreciate the circumstances of those poor American women, those European women, those South American women, those African women (you get the idea).
I don’t necessarily begrudge Pat or anyone a little flexibility on this issue. What I find most galling is the blatant meta-inconsistency, to wit: Robertson views morality as fixed, unchangeable. Yet here we have him (hypothetically, given his retraction) maintaining that immoral acts are moral in certain circumstances. Not unlike his position on state-sponsored assassinations (because, heck, they’re cheaper than wars!).
Given PR’s educational background (I think he went to Yale), of course he’s a hypocrite. Every swindler is. Each time he used trickery to pretend to be healing someone through God, he has been “professing beliefs, feelings, virtues that one does not hold or possess.”
In my 58-year old book, bad actions are worse than hypocracy. My impression is that the modern generation has rejected some traditional morality and have conpensated by elevating the “sin-rating” of hypocracy.
