it seems the TV preacher makes national news on a weekly basis. and it's almost never good news. every Saturday morning i go to Maddowblog for its "This Week in God" post, and every week, like clockwork, there's Robertson making some absurd claim or another. this week Saturday morning came early, as Robertson is already in the news for stating that gay men in San Francisco spread AIDS through special rings that cut the finger of unsuspecting straight people when shaking hands.
so here's my question - when this old fart finally dies, will it be acceptable to openly deride him?
we have some precedent. the reaction to Jerry Falwell was a mixed bag. certainly Christopher Hitchens wasn't afraid to be openly critical of the late televangelist.
i hope that people take the occasion to reflect on what a truly awful person Robertson is and say "good riddance". what say you?
Going by the title, I thought the question would be, going by the man's (professed) cosmology, whether he would wind up "upstairs" or "downstairs". (I'd say it's fortunate for him there is no divine judge, personally - "Gentle Jesus" would perhaps barbecue him with the Pharisees!)
Anyway, mocking him after his death is not going to hurt his feelings. The man has plenty of deep enemies who are bound to do just that. If his fans are shocked that people celebrate his death (much like with the recently departed Baronness Thatcher), they are stupid, frankly.
Still, I'd at least be prudent when it comes to deriding him after his death, proceeding with caution (it's usually a bad idea to p*ss off the wrong people), though I'd personally have no moral qualms in doing so.
The man is a looney toon of the first water and deserves to be mocked, whether he's in the here and now or six feet under.
And he's not the only one. Kenneth Copeland's mega-church just became the epicenter for a massive outbreak of measles, owing to their disavowal of vaccines. NOW all of a sudden they're doing vaccinations out of the church site itself!. Necks have snapped from g-forces of 180-degree turns lesser that that!
yeah, i posted a discussion on the Measles thing yesterday. and Chris Hayes had a segment on it last nite. here's the link to it:
i'll post this link to my discussion as well.
Why should we not deride him when he's dead? If many people agree and openly state that he's a dangerous, bigoted, batshit loon while he's alive, how does the cessation of all cellular activity in his body change that? I seriously doubt history will be any too kind to him once he's changed professions to that of a root inspector. I don't see any praises for Falwell now that he's a worm rancher. Why should it be any different for Robertson? To do otherwise would be to re-write and whitewash history, and knowingly promote a lie. I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire while he's alive. I certainly won't extend any more courtesy to him after he dies than I would Jim Jones, the Ayatollah Khomenie, or Pope Pious XII; the latter whom personally "blessed" the Nazi Wehrmact in Vatican Square.
haha, tell me how you really feel Pat. i completely agree.
btw, root inspector and worm rancher? hilarious!!
Sam Harris made the point a while back that asserting that Elvis is still alive costs the one making the assertion in terms of any future credibility. Robertson, Falwell, Copeland, Hagee and too many others regularly make outrageous claims which their followers swallow whole because they've been taught / told to. These specious dips deserve to be derided, mocked and otherwise laughed at without let, until they either die or clean up their act. Personally, I don't expect the latter, and while I wouldn't encourage the former, I won't shed any tears when any of their number croak.
The problem remains that they get rhythm at least in part because faith is respectable. Part of our job is to grant Christopher Hitchens his wish that faith and virtue are forced to part ways. It's at least one way we can honor his memory.
i know, but for some easy to understand reasons, people get skittish about speaking ill of the deceased. and of course, he's a "Christian leader" so many who aren't so familiar with him will think it's in poor taste.