Pat Robertson, a "Christian".

Well, it just shows what a lot of nonsense it is. I thought people would pick up that but it seems not.

Heh. My righteous indignation was getting in the way of my sense of humour.  

ETA: But what you've said is more or less exactly what I've heard people say in all seriousness. So you'll have to forgive us for believing you.

That's a fair point, the problem is that so many people use the term "Christian" as a synonym for "good."  

Exactly. Do people realise how offensive that is?

No worries, chary. This sort of topic is a mine field. I must say, that if Reverend Bigmouth gets up in public and says that gays will go to hell or that Haitians deserved the earthquake or (in 1917) that it is the Christian duty of British soldiers to kill Germans, I may not be able to say that they are not Christians, but I most certainly am entitled to have, and express, the opinion that they are bad ones.

Exactly. Do people realise how offensive that is?

Sometimes I really don't think they do, because they believe it so unwaveringly.  It's like if you said that the grass was green, you wouldn't expect people to be offended by that.  I have talked to people who honestly don't believe that it's possible to be good without being Christian.

I have talked to people who honestly don't believe that it's possible to be good without being Christian.

Oh my goodness, really?!?!  That is horrible!  Not to mention it's such a non-Christian way of thinking!

Oh my goodness, really?!?!  That is horrible!  Not to mention it's such a non-Christian way of thinking!

Yeah, I think it has a lot to do with the way they were raised.  If you grow up in a rural, white community with basically one ethnic background and one religion, and you never hear anything but good about Christians but do often hear bad things about other religions or "different" people, then you can end up with some pretty narrow views.  They aren't bad people themselves, just narrow and not very worldly. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583162,00.html

Oh!  Not another one!

Danny Glover says GLOBAL WARMING caused the earthquake and it is punishment for Copenhagen being a failure.  I imagine this hasn't caused any outrage because he hasn't blamed it on a less fashionable deity.

Danny Glover is out there trying to get help for some people who are on death’s doorstep people. If he blamed the Dalai Lama and ran naked through the streets of Port-au-Prince and his intentions would be light years more commendable than those taking comments on the spot out of context – to accomplish what end? Glover spoke of the people of the Caribbean being in peril from various natural phenomena. The video of this comments is fairly easily discernible, that is unless one wants to do a werewolf howl in the face of disaster. Look at one statement Danny Glover made which drove the cockroaches of controversy out of the woodwork here:

“When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens. You know what I’m saying?”

http://www.pamil-visions.net/danny-glover-versus-the-real-morons-sound-bit-media/210555/

ETA: But I imagine given enough time, plenty of people will be just as upset about something that wasn't said as they are about what Pat Robertson actually said.

Since Danny Glover's quote was taken totally out of context, I thought it only fair that people listen to Pat Robertson's comments in full.

So here is a link

http://nocureforthat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/haitis-deal-with-the-devil/

It's the second video on the page.

I thought it only fair that people listen to Pat Robertson's comments in full.

I would rather poke my own eyeballs out with a rusty spoon than listen to one word of Pat Robertson.  Thank you for the link though.

Since Danny Glover's quote was taken totally out of context, I thought it only fair that people listen to Pat Robertson's comments in full.

So here is a link

http://nocureforthat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/haitis-deal-with-the-devil/

It's the second video on the page.

I'm puzzled by this one - I've no idea what he was talking about, even in context! What the heck has climate change to do with it?!

I'm puzzled by this one - I've no idea what he was talking about, even in context! What the heck has climate change to do with it?!

Some people are alleging that he was saying that the Haiti earthquake was caused by global warming, which, I agree, makes no sense. However the Wikipedia page about him says: "On January 13, 2010, Glover compared the 2010 Haiti earthquake to the predicament other island nations may face as a result of the failed Copenhagen summit the previous year", which is much more reasonable.

Given the vast amount of distortion and all that Robertson/Limbaugh stuff going on, I would not be surprised if Glover is being grossly misrepresented.

The link I gave supposedly has the original video.

However the Wikipedia page about him says: "On January 13, 2010, Glover compared the 2010 Haiti earthquake to the predicament other island nations may face as a result of the failed Copenhagen summit the previous year", which is much more reasonable.

even with that, I don't think it's a reasonable thing to say - if it was a tsunami then perhaps. I don't think it was nasty or anything like the Pat Robertson one, just that it was irrelevent.

What I got from Glover's statement is that the US needs to develop a good relationship with Caribbean nations in general, because in the future, climate change is going to mean that these nations are going to need assistance from the US.

From the video, it didn't seem to me that he was saying that the earthquake was caused by climate change.

For those of you who couldn't bear to watch Pat Robertson's video, his statement is actually worse then the quotes that were given by the news media.

He says that ALL of Haiti's troubles since independence  have been caused by their pact with the devil.