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.