Pat Robertson Wouldn’t Know a Good Man If He Prayed To One

According to Pat Robertson, you can’t blame Gen. Petraeus for cheating, because he’s a man. Seriously?

Courtesy of the hardworking folks at RightWingWatch.org, enjoy this minute of utter facepalm fodder from professional embarrassment Pat Robertson:

Okay, as an atheist, maybe I shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on Christian doctrine, but if you’re going to spend decades plumping yourself up as a Christian leader, you should probably not be publicly condoning adultery. For a guy who’s repeatedly claimed that Jesus condemned homosexuality rather than never mentioning it, Mr. Robertson seems to have overlooked a couple things: Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-11, Luke 16:18, and just for fun, Matthew 5:27-32. Now again, I have no personal stake in the matter of Jesus’s opinion on the sanctity of marriage, but seriously, if you’re a Christian leader and you’re throwing out the Sermon on the Mount in favor of your own theory, you are bad at your job.

The stake I do have in this fight relates to the theory Mr. Robertson apparently thinks trumps the Gospels: that it’s impossible to blame a man for cheating on his wife, because he’s a man and that’s expected. So, going on Gen. Petraeus’s own assessment of his affair, that it was a dishonorable betrayal, Pat Robertson apparently takes for granted that there is no such thing as a good man.

That, to Pat Robertson, is what it means to be a man. By virtue of our gender, we’re intrinsically untrustworthy, horny beasts wandering a word of predatory, marathon-running women against whose wiles we are utterly powerless. Maybe I’m the jerk here, but I don’t think that’s true, and Pat Robertson should be ashamed of propounding such an insulting theory in public.

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Noah Brand

Noah Brand is an Editor-at-Large at Good Men Project, and possibly also a cartoon character from the 1930s. His life, when it is written, will read better than it lived. He is usually found in Portland, Oregon, directly underneath a very nice hat.

Comments

  1. wellokaythen says:

    Pat Robertson is a Christian the way Karl Marx was a businessman.

    • Thank you! You’ve just made my day! :)

      An instant signature line, folks! :)

    • Try describing the traits of your “real Christian.” You likely won’t, and probably can’t.

      • “Christian (n): One who claims to follow the purported teachings of supposed historical figure Jesus of Nazareth as they are depicted in the many translations of the Bible.”

        I can, and I just did Rob.

      • wellokaythen says:

        Well, considering that Jesus wasn’t exactly a Christian, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to be something other than a real Christian.

        You caught me. Guilty as charged. I can’t and won’t. I have trouble coming up with a definition, partly because there are just so many kinds of people claiming to have the corner on the truth. I am left wondering what a real Christian looks like, so you’re right, I made a very unfair statement I can’t back up. Honestly, I’m very confused by it all. Saddam Hussein’s Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, claimed to be a Christian, as do the child soldiers in the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, so I am just bewildered. Can you help me understand?

        • wellokaythen says:

          No, wait, I came up with a really good loophole. A long time ago, this guy I never met went to the top of a mountain. God spoke to him up there and told him that Pat Robertson was not a real Christian, and then he came down the mountain and told people that, and they wrote the words down and published them. That is part of my simple faith in God, and it’s good enough for me. I don’t need a definition, and I don’t need proof, because I just know in my heart that it’s true. Why isn’t there any room for faith anymore? If anyone says this is a stupid way to look at reality, then by right I will get very offended.

          How about that?

  2. wellokaythen says:

    Perhaps Petraeus was like King David, and he sent the woman’s husband into harm’s way so he could have her for himself. David is like a hero or something. Don’t forget about the Old Testament, people.

  3. So, what would you say are the traits of a “real Christian”? How does a person become a Christian?

    Aside from these questions, Noah Brand is perfectly within his right to offer a critique of Pat Robertson — which, I believe, is needed. Unlike the Bible, Mr. Robertson is not infallible.

    • Certainly he’s within his right to say whatever…but he’s got it wrong and distorted, and ought not position his agenda as a fact of Pat’s words. In fact, Pat spoke NO words of acceptance….NO WORDS of acceptance of the act as being “ok.” He was clearly explaining how this stuff happens. Does the sudden cut-off not make even the dim-witted a bit suspicious. Is the sudden cut-off not suspect even to the non-charged haters?

      And Again. Regardless of the sudden cut-off, you have to jump to agendized conclusions to get to claims that he says “its OK to be a sexual predator cuz yer a man.”

      • I must admit you do have a point.

        I could continue posting about Robertson’s controversial record, but I won’t because I’ve grown tired of participating in online exchanges.

        Best regards. :)

  4. I don’t see that as him trying defend/justify what he did on the grounds of being a man. Sounds more like he is just trying to say that’s why it happened, not that it’s okay. Now that being said I don’t think the “oh he’s a guy so that’s why it happened” is anymore correct than “it’s okay that he did it because he’s a guy”.

  5. I wouldn’t defend anything coming from the sick and evil mouth of Robertson, but I DO look forward to a day when monogamy is recognized as one option out of many, rather than some expected (and sanctimoniously demanded) ‘norm’ for everyone to follow.

    Sex scandals will be a thing of the past once our society takes this important step forward.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      Monogamy is the best structure for raising children and that is what marriage is really designed for, creating a healthy and stable environment for the raising of children. Polygamy, Polyamory, and whatever else you consider to “a” or “the” norm is contrary to the healthy development of children. As long as we focus on creating stable environments for the rearing of children, I hope and believe monogamy will be considered the norm.

      • What basis do you have for saying that monogamy is the best structure for raising children?

      • It’s cute that you think the raising of children should dictate everyone’s relationship options. It’s downright adorable that you think there’s only one way to do it, too.

    • I agree, Copyleft. I see it time and time again that a person agrees to monogamy, and then cheats. Everyone responds by saying that the problem is the person cheated.. maybe the problem is that a person who clearly doesn’t want to be monogamous agreed to monogamy in the first place.

  6. wellokaythen says:

    A more orthodox Robertsonian argument would be that Gen. Petraeus’ affair was some sort of punishment on Mrs. Petraeus, or part of some sort of divine collective punishment on America. Her pain is God’s retribution for something she did wrong. She was probably too nice to a gay person or some non-Christian person, probably said hello to a woman who had an abortion. The resignation of the head of an intelligence agency is also no doubt foretold symbolically in the Book of Revelation (“the head of the dragon shall be split in twain by the flaming sword of biography” or something like that). This is yet one more sign of the Second Coming, so put your hands on the TV screen for your blessing before sending in your credit card information.

    Whee, religion is fun!

  7. courage the cowardly dog says:

    If Christians are anything they are forgiving. What I find a little unforgiveable is that you took a 47 second clip and played it completely out of context. As I understand it Pat Robertson condemned
    General Patraeus’ behavior. Does this 47 seconds really capture Pat Robertson’s true feelings on the matter or have you manipulated the information to support your hatred of Pat Robertson. If so, shame on you.

  8. If Robertson condemns Petraeus for his adultery then his is a narrow minded judgmental bigot who blindly adheres to a 2000 year old work of fiction.

    If Robertson doesn’t condemn Petraeus then he is a hypocrite who doesn’t follow the guidelines of his faith.

    Either one works to tear down the christian faith which is the only point I can take out of this article.

Speak Your Mind

*