Posted on by Martin Rayner

“A Cloud of God’s Wrath”

Every year, Pat Robertson has a little sit down with God to chat about what America can expect in the coming year.

“What He is telling me, and I believe it’s right, is there’s a cloud over this nation; a cloud of God’s wrath over America,” he told the staff of the Christian Broadcasting Network last week. Robertson (or as The Rude Pundit calls him, the “head pudsucker of the batshit insane”) then went on to channel God: “You can’t have your courts turn against Me, you can’t have legislation that is anti-God, you can’t foster in your midst things that I call an abomination… you can’t do that! And if you do, sooner or later, judgment is going to come.”

“God is gradually turning the screws on this nation,” Robertson concluded. And who knows… maybe he’s right. After all, Lloyd Blankfein: chairman and CEO of Goldmann Sachs did recently claim that he was doing “God’s work”…

Or maybe not, Robertson’s predictions are surprisingly unreliable considering they’re purported to come directly from the Almighty. In 2006, he said there would be a Tsunami striking the Northwest U.S., the year before that he claimed that Bush would get tax and social security reform passed, and in 2004 that Bush would win the election “in a blowout” (3 points does not a blowout make).

50 Replies to ““A Cloud of God’s Wrath””

  4. Every time the Pat Robertson’s of the world open their mouths I cant help but think of Spencer Tracey in the greatest trial scene in move history “Inherit the Wind”. Classic!
    Pat Roberston wouldn’t stand a chance against Henry Drummond.

  5. Did he mention when the rapture might be coming? Would the GG be required to call an election, or could we just carry on without them? : )

  6. Every time Pat Robinson opens his mouth, and can’t help think of the Antichrist and the End of Days.

    Although as a good, devout Catholic…pause while the laughter peters out…I’m supposed to think of all of that as allegorical, nowadays I’m not so sure.

  10. Still here. Haven’t been smote yet.

    You can thank all the candles I light for you every Sunday at Church, my son.

  11. LOL.. ok.. now the apocalypse is certainly upon us when Ti-Guy is lighting candles for a conservative 🙂

    ..although I suppose you could be praying for my deliverance from the darkness of my wayward beliefs.

    Oh..

    And I just had another chat with God. He just told me Robertson has sex with rodents.

    ..not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  13. “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ~ Ghandi.

  15. Robertson really doesn’t get it, does he? There is a cloud over the US and it’s because of abortion, school prayer and homosexuals?? Jesus!!!

    It doesn’t surprise me that God has a problem with the US of A and its imperialism, and problems with every other country for their sins, too – since none is perfect – but I’m looking forward to the day people like Pat Robertson hear from God that there is a cloud over them personally for being false prophets !! And teaching about a god of their own fabrication. The biblical punishment for guys like him is death. (‘Course, he’s getting pretty old, anyway….)

  16. God didn’t talk to Pat Robertson.

    She’s smarter than to reveal anything meaningful
    to a certifiable idiot.

  19. Maybe this will be the year that God “recalls” Pat Robertson like he did Oral Roberts last year!

  20. Maybe this will be the year that God “recalls” Pat Robertson

    Lets see, this is the guy who called Islam ‘satanic’, Hinduism ‘demonic’, and that even some of his fellow Christian denominations harbor the spirit of the Antichrist. He has blamed 9/11 on homosexuality and that gays bring about earthquakes, tornadoes, meteors and bombs, and has publicly called for the assassination of certain leaders of sovereign nations (who’ve been democratically elected) for being ‘enemies of the USA’, meanwhile having financial dealings with certain petty despots in African nations with really nasty human rights records.

    If Pat Robertson is ‘recalled’ in 2010, I wouldn’t count on him seeing much of God in the afterlife. After all, Pat is the kind of guy which Jesus spoke against …and he should have figured that out if he actually took the time to read his bible instead of just thumping it.

  21. I don’t really see a huge sea of difference between people like Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden.

    Religious zealots from any corner cannot conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong. That another point of view is worthy of consideration. And that is particularly irritating coming from a conservative who finds these sorts popping up with some frequency seeing to enlist government in their crusade.

    And that makes them not only stupid, but dangerous, because they have the ability to remove rational thought from their followers, and to engage them in efforts which would otherwise defy decency and any semblance of true “morality”.

    Which is why I love Christopher Hitchens. I think he throws the baby out with the bathwater, but his intellect is so keen that it’s a joy watching him undress the charletans like Robertson.

  22. I don’t really see a huge sea of difference between people like Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden.

    I do. Bin Laden is, comparatively, more noble since, as far as I can conclude, his primary motivation is not personal, material gain (which is Robertson’s *real* God).

    Argument by comparison is a dead-end anyway. From what I understand of Bin Laden (which isn’t much, because psychotic mass-murderers are not really that interesting to me), we have evidence of issues of actual substance that have motivated him. With Robertson, I’m really quite mystified.

  23. I don’t even want to pretend to try to get into the minds of either of these cretins to deconstruct why they seem so hell bent on hating anyone who doesn’t share their view of the universe.

    My point is just that we seem very quick to villify (with justification) Mulsim extremists for their conduct, but seem to look the other way in our own back yard when Christian extremists border on the same sort of dangerous zealotry.

    The assention of society to something better, it seems to me, has to be premised on being open to listen to people we disagree with. Open to, respectfully, “agree to disagree”.

    Religious fanatics of any stripe can’t contemplate that.. because they are always on a “mission from God” that precludes the need to consider such mudane concepts as the point of view of other mere mortals.

  24. My point is just that we seem very quick to villify (with justification)
    I love that this is likely Rob speak for: “I’m a fucking xenophobe religious racist”….

    Maybe you can restart without the bias…

  25. CWTF.

    Seriously?

    Do you actually read the posts you attack, or do you just grasp what few words your simple mind will allow you to employ in an effort to exorcise the demons you have inside resulting from your mother not breastfeeding you?

    Ok.

    So, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. That you aren’t just being an obnoxious twirp and seriously find some concern over the fact that I qualified by statement regarding Muslim extremists.

    That, apparently, my rhetoric is lost on you.

    Uh.. when I attack the pompous prick Pat Robertson, and suggest that “we are quick to villify” Muslim zealots.. I wish to assure that there is no mistake in any implication that I either condone or feel badly for the (except perhaps for you) criticism that they endure by most of the world, including moderate Muslims.

    Sorry.

    Too wordy.

    CWTF:

    Zealots of any religion are fucked and are dangerous.

    Simple enough for you?

  26. Better Rob, but like much of your arguments, there is always a right-wing bias… usually based on, well nothing…

    Your words were quite simple and betrayed the visceral reaction that you always have when it comes to anything Muslim….

    I’d actually like to see what “justification” that you have regarding that vilification that is not a direct or indirect result of right-wing policies.

  27. As an aside, since you seem to indicate a dislike for religious zealots, I’m sure you’ll be speaking out against the present lot of Harper Conservatives… right?

    Didn’t think so….

  28. I think people need to declare their interests, particularly their affiliation, religious, cultural or ethnic when discussing things like this to avoid any perceptions of miscommunication and to be sensitive to miscommunication in general.

    I know CWTF speaks French, but I wonder…are you Muslim or Middle-Eastern by any chance?

  29. Because every Harper conservative is a “religious zealot”?

    ..though I can say, I’ve been on several BT blogs suggesting that we cannot allow “conservatism” to be used as a tool to breach the separation of church and state. Whenever I come across an argument for teaching “intelligent design” in our schools, I am quick to denounce.

    I think faith is personal, and should be left that way.

    I don’t appreciate missionaries of any stripe at my door and definitely don’t want them in my schools.

    And those who can’t accept that, are better off outside of the party I currently support.

    Truth be told, I’ve been getting into a bit of a tiff on Stephen Taylor’s site, suggesting that the whole “Reform” experiment was misguided and, ultimately, pointless.

    And I have nothing against Muslims, or Jews, or Hindu, or Buddhists. Personally, if you’re curious, I’m somewhat of a polytheist. I think God created several religions because he knew that one flavor wouldn’t be acceptable to all. At their core, however, when they aren’t being abused and distorted, to the best of my understanding, the major religions all profess a need for kindness and compassion.

    It’s the people who pervert that message and, instead, seek to use it to hurt others than I hate.

  30. Personally, if you’re curious, I’m somewhat of a polytheist

    Oh, Jesus Christ. Now I have to light even more candles on Sunday. 😉

  31. are you Muslim or Middle-Eastern by any chance?
    No and no.
    Baptized Roman Catholic, c’est tout.

  32. And what’s your reading on the pure laine scale?

    … 😉

    I just brought that up because you seem inordinately sensitive when it comes to certain issues.

  33. Because every Harper conservative is a “religious zealot”?
    If this were a BT site, you’d know that every Muslim would be labelled a zealot.

    Not, not every Harper conservative is a religious zealot.

    But you do have to wonder what influence Brent Trask has on the PM.

    It’s the people who pervert that message and, instead, seek to use it to hurt others than I hate.
    Funny how Conservatives seem to be the ones that oppose ssm more than any other political party…
    So are you a fan of Charles McVety?
    The The0-cons have much influence, I’m sure that Rob will be denouncing the Conservatives any minute now for how religious beliefs have infiltrated his party…

  35. ..and yet Alberta was the first province in Canada to provide legal recognition to same sex relationships under the Adult Interdependant Relationships Act.

    But, my point isn’t to make this a “conservative/liberal” issue.. basically, I suppose, I was just agreeing with R/T’s sentiments regarding Pat Robertson.

    I suppose, the fact that I’m posting as opposed to just keeping it to myself, is to I guess point out that there is at least ONE conservative who isn’t some right-wing religious zealot.

    You never know.

    There could be two of us.

  36. Woah, woah, woah, Rob.

    You can’t drop that kind of reality on Cherni. It doesn’t fit into his ideological view of the universe, so he doesn’t react well.

  37. Move goal posts around much Rob?
    Funny how Conservatives seem to be the ones that oppose ssm more than any other political party…
    You counter with in Alberta’s Adult interdependent relationships – if I understand correctly it DOES NOT provide all the benefits/rights of marriage.

    If we look at SSM, issue under Klein, the party always tried to block it. He went so far as to invoke the “Notwithstanding Clause”. Since the “Notwithstanding Clause” is good for five years, he decided not to renew it (reasons unknown) but likely due to other challenges nationwide.

    Now, the history of the legislation is interesting.
    It is a response to “M. v. H.”, so hardly something that Klein initiated by himself….

    When Bill C-38 was passed, Klein huffed that he would only issue “civil union” licences.
    I’m wondering, since this is your area of expertise, is there not an exclusion for civil officials who refuse to perform SSM in Alberta?

    As for SSM being recognized from wiki:

    Same-sex marriage was legally recognized in the provinces and territories as of the following dates:
    10 June 2003: Ontario
    8 July 2003: British Columbia
    16 March 2004: Quebec
    14 July 2004: Yukon territory
    16 September 2004: Manitoba
    24 September 2004: Nova Scotia
    5 November 2004: Saskatchewan
    21 December 2004: Newfoundland and Labrador
    23 June 2005: New Brunswick
    20 July 2005 (Civil Marriage Act): Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut territory, and the Northwest Territories

    Note that in some of these cases, the marriage was in fact legal at an earlier date (for example, the Ontario ruling held that marriages performed in January 2001 were legal when performed), but the legality was questioned. As of the given dates, the legality was authoritatively established.

    The decision by the Ontario government to recognize the marriage that took place in Toronto, Ontario on January 14, 2001, makes Canada the first country in the world to have a same-sex marriage (Netherlands, April 2001 and Belgium January 2003.) [2]

    And one wonders why lawyers are accused of being “weaselly” with words.

    Should we go into how many Federal Conservatives have spoken out against SSM? And they do seem to be of the same ilk as their Alberta provincial counterpart…

    there is at least ONE conservative who isn’t some right-wing religious zealot.
    True. But that voice is too often drowned out by the Rossholes in the party.

  38. ..and yet Alberta was the first province in Canada to provide legal recognition to same sex relationships under the Adult Interdependant Relationships Act.
    Of course that is incorrect…
    That came about in 2003 while Quebec had already amended the Civil code in 2002 to allow same-sex couples to have almost the same rights as marriage…and that was voted unanimously…

  39. Let me turn your attention back to January of 2002, when both Pat Robertson and George W. Bush interviewed Jesus about then then-propodsed American invasion of Iraq. Pat reported that Jesus told him the invasion of Iraq would be a plague of Old Testament proportions, while George reported that Jesus told him “Go for it!”

    So maybe there’s an issue of Jesus talking out of both sides of his mouth, but I really think that during his interview, Pat actually listened to what Jesus had to say, while we all know that George never listened to anyone.

    I’ve had a bit of Christian warmth in my heart for Pat ever since.

  40. I had a little sit down with God the other night to chat about what Canada might expect in the upcoming Olympic games. To prevent any favourable bounce the Conservatives may enjoy from the Olympic experience I asked the Almighty to see that Team Canada absolutely blows it in Vancouver. And that includes the mens hockey team. My ecclesiastical dream scenario? The Americans win gold against the Russians! USA!USA!USA! Praise the Lord!

  44. Well, I’d expect some kind of retraction/correction from Rob… he is a family lawyer after all…

    A simple “I was wrong” would suffice…

  45. CWTF..

    I stand corrected.

    Quebec presented their bill on April 25, 2002, Alberta presented it’s bill two weeks later.

    True, neither bill equated a same sex union with “marriage”. I never said it did.

    My point is that, essentially, Alberta (and Quebec), were I suppose the two provinces (as corrected) which took the first formal steps to legally recognize same sex unions. Although, as you say, not as “marriages” per se.

    My bad.

  49. I must confess…I called up the prayer line and asked the hapless “prayer agent” to “tell that antichrist Pat Robertson that Haitians did *not* engage in a deal with the Devil.” When she asked me what I meant, I lapsed into tongues then hung up.

Leave a comment