Op-Ed: Robertson’s words a disaster of their own

The premise and presentation of Francke’s article is flawed and quite hypocritical. Under a guise of concern for the slanderous statements made against the Haitian people, he builds an unnecessary and redundant case against the credibility of Robertson. His actual motive for calling into question the reliability of this particular talking head is revealed in the latter half of the article, which rapidly deteriorates into a petty religious disagreement.

According to ongoing surveys conducted over the past four decades by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, 2% of responders cite fame as being the most important factor in life. Celebrity religious commentators fit neatly into this segment of the population; the ridiculously controversial statements given by such figures are clearly generated by a need to garner attention and provoke reactions from the more composed members of society.

The saying “Don’t feed the trolls” serves as an apt summary of the approach that should be taken with concern to figures such as Robertson. Unfortunately we have people like Francke, who think that by pointing out the obvious they are doing readers a favor, instead of recognizing that they are merely encouraging the continued ravings of dime-a-dozen pundits. The numerous instances of “P-Rob” crazy talk referenced by Francke serve only to demonstrate to an excessive degree that Robertson has been riding his gravy train for years and, so long as responses such as this article continue to be produced, he has no reason to change his modus operandi.

Though this article would be deplorable enough were it to entail merely the figurative dismemberment of Robertson’s validity, the reader is forced to suffer through seven more paragraphs of skewed reasoning.

The author’s true purpose in the writing of this piece is made blatantly clear as, after a clumsy segue, he goes on to assert his own personal religious beliefs as being a more correct interpretation of the Bible. Yet who is to say which reading of the Scriptures is the ultimate truth? It can’t be done. There is no value in attempting a reasonable debate with a fanatic; they are far too set in their ways to be convinced otherwise, and engaging in such a discussion will only serve to lower one’s personal integrity.

The article comes to an underwhelming, generalized close with some of the most un-opinionated opinions I’ve seen expressed in this publication thus far. Francke feels it obligatory to inform what small portion of his audience still remains that “I hope that good comes out of the unspeakable tragedy in Haiti.” Do you really? That’s some radical thinking. As is your desire for a world where “good things [are] always happening to good people and bad people [are] ceaselessly getting their just desserts.”

Oh, and just for good measure, Francke decides to really solidify his credibility by ending on a predictably hypocritical note. He urges Robertson to “please try to be more sensitive in the future,” and in the very next sentence encourages the man to place himself in the center of a “natural disaster or terrorist attack.” What happened to the Christian concepts of mercy and love you were so quick to preach just a few paragraphs prior?

I hope vitriolic “female freshman” feels relieved following her catharsis. Though nothing persuasive arose from the animus espoused, perhaps she took a deep breath and expelled CO2 for nearby trees, therby rendering her rant of some value.

I don’t see anything hypocritical in this article…”female freshman” obviously overlooked the fact that it is ENTITLED “Robertson’s Words a Disaster,” just as she failed to comprehend the irony addressed in the piece. BECAUSE OF THE TITLE, the reader knows before he “suffers” through all those paragraphs, that the subject of the article is Pat Robertson vis-a-vis the Haitian disaster. And everyone also knows Robertson is a religious fanatic, so a religious discussion is CERTAINLY anticipated (not a hidden agenda)!

Maybe hyper-angry “female freshman” can practice sensitivity in the future…I fail to see how her response reflects personal integrity.

There are people that like Pat Rob. I hate him. But that tells you what kind of world we live in. And what population my tax dollars go towards.

“female freshman”, it is true that people like P-Rob (hah) thrive on publicity, and it’s an unfortunate statement about our society in general that he has such a large following. But your criticism of this article really comes across as a personal vendetta against the author, instead of a coherent argument.

You’re basically saying that no one should criticize Robertson, because it brings him more attention. Well, here’s the thing. This is a school newspaper, which reaches at most a few thousand people, so it has a relatively small impact on his influence/reputation/fame. Meanwhile, Robertson is broadcasting his joke of a show on television, reaching millions of viewers nationwide. Your point is moot. Publishing an article in a campus newspaper isn’t going to propel P-Rob to new heights of stardom.

I happen to think that raising a voice of dissent against the voice of bigotry is a GOOD thing. Ignoring a racist message like Robertson’s isn’t going to make him go away. If you have any “personal integrity,” the least you can do is have the guts to stand up for what’s right and denounce people like Robertson who are motivated by hate and ignorance. What exactly are you proving by critiquing Francke’s article like it’s some kind of analytical writing assignment for a class? It’s a lot easier to tear apart someone else’s article than to write an original thought of your own — if you think you can do a better job, why don’t you write an article yourself and submit it?

So … miss freshman … reading beyond your big words and flashy semantics, here’s how I understand your reply: “I don’t really disagree with anything Francke says, but I sure disagree with his right to say it.”

A few questions for you…

1. Do you support Robertson’s claim that the Haiti earthquake was an act of vengeance by God?

2. Do you refute Francke’s claim that this alleged Satanic pact was not, as Robertson asserts, associated with any form of devil worship?

3. Please defend your use of the words “unnecessary” and “petty” in your description of Francke’s theological disagreement with Robertson.

I’ll give you a little ammo for #3: In the context of the article, I believe Francke’s disagreement with Robertson was neither petty nor unnecessary (two words which, I might add, smack of unnecessary redundancy. But I digress.)

Francke’s thesis is that Robertson errs when he claims God’s venegeance is the cause of human and natural disasters. He believes the cause of the error is Robertson’s Old Testament view of God, and he supports his position with accurate citations from the New Testament. (You’re aware of the difference between the two Testaments, I assume? Because if you are, then you know Francke is dead on.)

If you reply to my questions, please resist the urge to show off your vocabulary. I’m not impressed. I’ve fired j-school grads for far less rambling than you did in your original reply.

Two of my questions are of the “yes-or-no” variety, so it should be pretty easy to handle them with minimal verbiage. The third may be a bit trickier, because one person’s “petty” and “unnecessary” is another’s “germane” and “essential.” So I’ll brace myself for a healthy dose of prose on that one.

Aha! A commentator most worthy of adversarial status! (Apologies, but I couldn’t help myself. What’s the point in having all these words if they’re never put to use? Although, really, I’m not the only one who should be condemned for excessive verbiage; CCL’s “vitriolic” “catharsis” and “animus espoused” are hardly colloquial terms.

As to your inquiries, Onewhonose:

1. Definitely not.

2. I haven’t done any research into the centuries-prior slave rebellion, so I can’t state a definitive opinion. I am inclined to believe that the claims of “devil-worshipping” are prejudiced lies.

3. If one is going to take the time to write an article discussing the merits or downfalls of another’s position, chose a subject whom the vast majority of the population takes seriously. Robertson is just too easy a target. Any discussion of his claims won’t generate an intellectual conversation featuring divergent yet equally viable viewpoints. What’s more likely to result is a feel-good bonding experience via insultfest about a rightwing fanatic.

I don’t disagree with the many of the points made by Francke, you are correct in stating this. Neither do I disagree with his right to say them. What I do fault is Francke wasting both his and our time on a subject that has no real significance beyond that which we assign it. Robertson would have no power if people just stopped giving his petulant little self attention. It requires intelligence, motivation, and courage to take the time to research, write, and publish an article. Francke should take more pride in his abilities and express an opinion on a matter that actually has value to the student population, one that is applicable to our daily lives and not just to our addiction to the defamation of celebrities.

It was never my intention to comment on the correctness of his opinion regarding the Scriptures, and I avoided doing so in my response. I think everyone holds their own views and all are equally acceptable (so long as they aren’t used to justify the abuse of others). I am aware of the differences between Testaments, however this does not automatically cause my opinion to be aligned with either your or Francke’s views on the matter.

While your exercise of such power is terribly intimidating, I feel a public forum to be the perfect setting for testing the boundaries of written expression. Perhaps if my prose is so unimpressive, I’ll deliver my next response entirely in verse.

So you support not giving Robertson national attention, but discussion on a local level is okay? I’m assuming this is because you believe that just because the readership doesn’t consist of millions it won’t matter? This of course makes little sense; just consider the grass roots movement which played a major role in getting our current president elected, and that all took place entirely within communities. At what point does the degree of exposure become large enough to justify either talking about the man or not? This is an issue in which to take the middle ground, as you have done, is to willingly choose hypocrisy.

“Publishing an article in a campus newspaper isn’t going to propel P-Rob to new heights of stardom.”

According to this position, then, neither will it bring about any enlightenment as to the flawed nature of his statements and thus is a pointless endeavor.

“I happen to think that raising a voice of dissent against the voice of bigotry is a GOOD thing. Ignoring a racist message like Robertson’s isn’t going to make him go away.”

As I’ve stated numerous times, Robertson holds sway because we grant him that power. If you read my comment to Onewhonose (below) you’ll see I go into detail as to why he makes for poor subject matter. I have so little regard for Robertson I can’t see how someone could justify wasting the time even addressing his mindless raving.

“It’s a lot easier to tear apart someone else’s article than to write an original thought of your own…”

Isn’t that what you’ve done to me? Besides, why should Francke bother writing opinions in the first place if not to generate healthy debate among supporters and dissenters? Frankly, I’m quite delighted people are taking offense to my position; it means they’re actually thinking and taking the time to articulate those thoughts.

So, to sum up:

You do, in fact, agree with Francke’s basic premise about Robertson. You just don’t think Francke should waste his time (and yours … and mine) skewering such an easy target.

Do I have that right?

If not, please clarify — in simple terms. (Write like you’re trying to teach me instead of like you’re tring to compete with me.)

If I do have it right … Then surely you’ll agree that you’re being just as petty as Francke is, given that your only beef is that Francke picked too easy a target to … well, pick on. Right? I mean, you haven’t really named anyone that you think is more worthy of skewering. All you’ve done is complain about Francke’s choice.