November 22, 2014

Here’s a strange . . .

I would prefer not to do the “pile on crazy Pat Robertson” thing here today, though some of it is inevitable in the light of the following clip.

I have heard Pat say some remarkable things over the years, but this is jaw-droppingly surprising to me.

What do you make of it?

Comments

  1. Wow. Just wow. I’ve never written a comment before although I read IM daily, but have to write one now. I’ve always thought that Pat Roberston has perpetuated a self-serving gospel rather than a sacrificial one. Here’s an excellent example of that. This is just shameful.

    • “Pat Roberston has perpetuated a self-serving gospel rather than a sacrificial one.”

      I believe that you have correctly identified the key to this whole matter and yes, it iis a shame. But what is encouraging is that so many Christians are speaking out against what he said. God bless them all..

  2. WHAT? DId he really say that?

    Surely not.

    • It has to be dementia…or this man is truly evil and a false prophet.

      We know how THAT works out!

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

      I have heard Internet speculation that Robertson might be Alzheimers himself. The reference was a comment (somewhere between Katrina and/or the Haiti Earthquake) that Robertson was starting to sound like the commenter’s boss when said boss was first showing symptoms of Alzheimers. It’s very possible Robertson’s mental health is failing with age and it’s showing by him shooting off his mouth.

  3. Dear Pat,
    My wife is not as thin or as good looking as when she was 22. The woman I married is gone. May I divorce her?

  4. Yeah, well, I know, if you respect that vow…”

    Oh, dear.

  5. Strange & sad.

  6. That’s evil.

  7. I guess the divorce preserves the man from the sin of adultery?

  8. I really think his mind is slipping, part of the dangers of a personality based organization. Whose job is it to tell him to gracefully disappear from the spotlight?

    • Does anyone know, do they still do the show live? or would they have had a chance to edit out that segment?

      • That show (700 Club) would be gone altogether except that when Pat sold CBN (Christian Broadcast Network) to the ABC Family Channel, part of the contract made was to continue to broadcast The 700 Club daily.

    • I think you have hit on the truth of the matter. I have GREAT respect for the wisdom of age, but then at some point there is also the loss of faculty. When that happens soemone needs to say “it’s time to step down.”

    • Slipping? This is the man who blamed gays for 911.. who said someone should explode a nuclear bomb in the USA, who has many times equated homosexuality to rape, who has said that lesbians are witches…

      He is not slipping, he is staying at his usual, horrible level.

  9. Quixotequest says:

    Why does this man need a divorce? He is needing to fulfill the “commandments” of Gen 1:28 and 1 Cor 7:9! ;-)

    *shaking head like Chester Cheetah*
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2aupcCKyho

  10. This kind of cult of personality has always been one of my biggest issues with evangelical Christianity. There is no one who can reign Robertson in. Say what you like against the Catholic hierarchy at least there are some safeguards in place to try to control con artists like this, (and yes he is a con artist, Robertson lives like a king on the checks of people on social security and the poor, a more vile person I do not know).

  11. Oh Pat!! Where would fundegelical Christianity today be without you?!?! Dare I say it? But do you take opposition to Albert Mohler and his thoughts about divorce? Comments like this just amaze me…and will others in the Christian community correct him? Will that happen? Or will this be another case of it being glossed over.

  12. This is a very difficult thing and I don’t believe people should rush to judgment. I think people should make their own decisions based on their individual situation.

    Even if the decision made is the wrong one (the sinful one)…is it MORE damning than all the other sinful decisions that we make on a regular basis?
    Skipping church. Gossiping about a neighbor. Being angry with someone. Laying around on the couch all day instead of looking for ways to be helpful in the community? Worrying (about anything) ?

    Being a divorced man, and breaking ALL the Commandments in one way or another, prompted me to write this.

    • It is one thing to be divorced. It is another thing to say that one should divorce a spouse because they become ill with dementia.

      • I think there are degrees of dementia. And there are degrees of people’s ability to cope with such situations.

        I don’t think we can make a blanket condemnation without knowing all the facts and even then we are not in that person’s shoes.

        Would you advise someone who is abused physically or emotionally, to divorce?

        • My late Husband died, at the age of 50, of ALS. I learnt that “for better and for worse” meant worse… “in sickness and in health” meant sickness… and “until death do us part” meant death and not before regardless of how I felt, what the statistics were, or how other people might advise me. I was there, by his side, at that last moment because that was what I was called to do as his Wife; his “help-meet”.

          God promised never to give us more than we can handle. He also promised us the Grace to get out of those situations where temptations, common to Man, were too much for us at those moments. I was, after four years, exhausted: physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally. I had always lived a pretty sheltered life where Bad Things happened to Other People. Now I was the Other People and I didn’t even have Family to turn to as my last Parent had died just a scant year before.

          But I learnt. A lot. Disease is a terrible thing and it comes to all of us in one way, shape, or form. I was 50 when my Husband died. Advocating an abandonment of another in need, a beloved in need, the spouse of our youth in their least attractive, least productive, least attentive years is heartless…

          It’s simple, really. Instead of gnostically deciding (putting spirit above body) what we think based on what we feel and opine, why don’t we decide what we believe and know to do based on what is true and noble, regardless of how hard, how messy, and how self-sacrificing and painful it may be?

      • Logically, it is a development from the arguments that permitted divorce on the grounds of insanity. Professor van Helsing, in the novel “Dracula”, makes passing mention of his wife and how the Catholic Church does not permit divorce:

        “and me,with my poor wife dead to me, but alive by Church’s law, though no wits, all gone, even I, who am faithful husband to this now-no-wife”

        An article in the August 1896 edition of the “Journal of American Medical Association” makes reference to the same topic:

        “Modern Barbarism ” is the title given by a well-known and well-edited New York religious weekly to the recent action of the German Reichstag in making incurable insanity a legitimate cause for divorce, and to the commendations of this legislation by an English paper, the London Chronicle. The latter had said, in effect, that in making this enactment the German legislature was in accord ” with the common sense of civilized mankind,” and that the existing law of England which does not recognize insanity as a cause for divorce, was only “a piece of barbarian bigotry.”

        So in 1897 (the date of the novel) the attitude in England was beginning to swing round to thinking that denying a divorce to the spouse of an irremediably insane person was cruel. However, it was not until 1937 that English law permitted divorce on the grounds of incurable and severe mental illness (the law was also liberalised to permit divorce on the grounds of permanent desertion, as well as the heretofore sole grounds of adultery – and as a side note, up to then, men could divorce their wives solely for adultery, but women had to prove adultery plus something else – cruelty, incest, etc.). Further broadening of the definitions of insanity and desertion were made in the Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Act 1958.

        The arguments were basically the same: the insane spouse is no longer capable of fulfilling the marriage vow, is no longer the same person he or she was when married, and that tying the sane partner to a life with the husband or wife who cannot be a husband or wife any longer was unfair, cruel, and heartless. It was denying the healthy partner a chance at happiness and the family life he or she had a right to expect.

        Nothing changes, just develops. Why so surprised at this attitude? We’ve opened our mouths and swallowed the camel, why strain at the gnat?

    • Quixotequest says:

      You’re right: we are all separated from God by sin except by the grace of the Son, and as such should seek humility, graciousness and wisdom be magnified toward many difficult situations.

      Iniquity, transgression and sin are not all the same thing — even different violations of the Mosaic law carried different weight and penalty. I’m not advocating we magnify our rules-lawyering, just that our interpersonal relationships with believers and our faith communities are nuanced by the shades of how what kinds of sins and transgressions affect those relationships and how. Yes gossiping is sinful, unholy and harmful. Yet it’s not the same as an enclave of open marriage swingers using small groups Bible study as a way to hook up. And neither is Robertson’s painful response here of similar degree; but it carries more harmful weight, I’d esteem, than skipping church.

      Encouraging divorce off-handedly this way makes me (among many other things he says) lament whether Robertson has healthy peer accountability and oversight in his ministry. Above all I can control the extent evangelists like him are part of shaping my relationship with the larger community of God. I’m a sinner just like him. And I’m not placing any trust in his ministry to shepherd and influence me in my walk with Christ. To dearly hope that Robertson will start to have more wisdom and guidance in his ministry doesn’t deny the reality that we all need our Lord.

      • I’m no fan of Robertson, believe me. And I don’t think he should be giving advice without knowing ALL the facts (maybe he did in this case – although he didn’t seem to know anymore than we do).

        Skipping church, BTW, is a crime punishable by eternal death. God thought so highly of it (gathering to hear God’s Word and to receive the Sacraments) that He actually made it one of the 10 Commandments. :D

        • Quixotequest says:

          “Skipping” to me connotes playing hookie, not rejecting the need to abide in Community. :-)

          • I know what you mean, Q. I wish I had a dollar for every time I “played hookie”.

            But the Lord our God does not wink at sin.

            My point is (was) that none of us is in a position to judge these men (not knowing everything that is involved) and in light of all the ways that we break God’s law each and every day.
            We ought drop our rocks, one at a time, and walk away.

          • Quixotequest says:

            Agreed. Even if that story’s authenticity is questionable. :-)

            But I think I’ll keep the rocks of judgement to toss at myself if I find myself wont to shape my spirituality on the example of ministries like the 700 Club.

          • “But I think I’ll keep the rocks of judgement to toss at myself if I find myself wont to shape my spirituality on the example of ministries like the 700 Club”

            You’d better make them BIG ONES!

            Yes, they are a bit off…but hey… Christ died for them, too!

            Signing off for the evening. G’nite, Q.

        • Going to church is in the Ten Commandments?

  13. I think his mind is slipping. Or he thinks it’s better to divorce her and then remarry so not to be adulterous but, then again isn’t that still considered adultery? Hmmm. The most bothersome aspect of this is that he is so willing to call judgment down on a whole country (Haiti) but he seems to think that this isn’t something God would frown upon?

  14. It’s epidemic. From religion to culture to politics, we seek after that which inflates the ego. In religion it is perpetuated by faith-prosperity. In media and culture it is perpetuated by hedonistic ads and icons like Charlie Sheen. In politics, it’s Ayn Rand. I don’t think the times are any different than those of ancient Greece or Rome. How the message of the cross – which courageously sneers at death and self-perpetuation and recklessly embraces life in selfless love – survived the ancient world is beyond me. In that ancient age of hedonism, even in the midst of the most brutal persecution, the church attracted people from out of hedonism. Why? Because self is a dead-end road. Self-perpetuation is no end in itself. I think people now are reaching that same conclusion: “It’s All About Me” is a tired old song. But where will they turn to find hope and meaning above ego, now that the church as fallen under the same spell?

    But think about recent imonk discussions of marriage. This concept that the man is the center of the family and everything revolves around that ego can’t be Christian. If it were, what does that say about God – that God is the ultimate ego? On the contrary! The example set forth by Son of God is to die for those whom you love, to empty yourself of exaltation and glory and take on the form of a servant. If all that matters is the husband’s ego, success, and hormones, then it makes sense to divorce an wife inflicted with an incurable disease. But if all that matters is love, then the place for a husband is at the side of his wife, ’til death do us part.

  15. This probably is an instance of piling on Pat, but we used to sit around watching his show with bets on how many minutes in to the show it would be before he said something that at least half of us agreed was completely out to lunch. The lower numbers usually won. I haven’t viewed the clip (or checked in on ol’ Pat lately), but I can guess….

  16. For all we know, the woman and man could have had an agreement that if anything ever happened to one another (death, coma, dementia, whatever) that they WANTED the other to remarry.

    Or…

    maybe by being single and not able to work, the woman could receive better care, or have her care paid for, where if she was married she would not.

    The point is, we don’t know the whole story and it does make a difference.

    • I tend to agree.

      I think Robertson’s answer was off and rather flippant and unwise for sure. But I also think I would not rush to judgement until I knew not only the particulars but the people involved and the totality of the situation. I always have to remind myself how easy it is to be an armchair quarterback and how difficult it is when you are in the middle of some entirely new and incredibly challenging situation.

      I’ve also seen the flip side so to speak in which a husband and wife have sacrificed everything to care for a disabled child. It has consumed them and destroyed their marriage relationship because they can’t get any distance from it or let go in any way.

      The destructiveness of a broken and fallen creation presses us on all sides sometimes. We all need grace.

      • My mom stayed by my dad’s side long after he didn’t even remember who she was. It was a painful process, but still not as painful as the day he died. I think she would rather have him here with the dimentia than be alone without him. I understand the need to be charitable and give grace. Many crack under the stress. But that aside, we tend to neglect the words of the teacher, “It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2). We keep thinking that life is about carving out our share of happiness. Even if someone wanted his or her spouse to leave and find a younger, healthier replacement, the wise spouse would stay put.

  17. Here’s the whopper I remember:
    “Robertson claims on his web site that through training and his “Age-Defying energy shake”, he is able to leg press 2,000 lb (907 kg) while others claim he is a liar, pushing a common energy formula.”

    And when looking for it I found out that there’s a wikipedia page dealing with his controversies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies#Leg_press

    I’ve said for years that he was a fairly smart business man, a middling successful politician, and a typical cult of personality preacher. He really wants to be the later but keeps stepping into the other areas.

    During his hay days in the 80s and 90s it was depressing to meet new Christians who were watching him every day to learn how to lead a Christian life.

    And as I watch my parents’ generation aging even if he doesn’t have Alzheimer I suspect he may be starting to have memory issues. Nearly all of the people I know in their later 70s and older seem to develop selective memories. As to whether this is due to deterioration, lack of mental exercise, or just too much to remember clearing, I have no idea. And yes there are people who do not have this problem but many do.

    As to whether or not the staff might edit things like this out of the show, most anyone working for PTL will very likely be a true believer and totally unable to see any problems with anything he does.

  18. My dad watches the 700 club every day (I mean every.single.day.), and so I catch regular snippets of it which I try to tune out, mostly. I’ve been amazed at how far Mr. Robertson has slipped just in the last year or two, whether its alzheimers or senility or just normal old age, he is really not quite with it anymore. It’s apparent even in innocuous segments such as the sessions where he brings in his dog and dog trainer. I’ve actually felt sorry for the other people on his show (even though I can’t stand the show itself) because they must be cringing quite often.

    There will have to come a point when it’s just too much and someone will need to ask him to step down. I always assumed his son would take his place.

  19. Matt Purdum says:

    It’s way past time the people at CBN ousted Robertson.

  20. Nothing surprises me anymore about Pat.

  21. It’s the fundamentalist thing . . . they are so very judgmental on the ‘sins of others’, but when it comes to empathy and compassion, they can find the strangest arguments to avoid charitable responsibility to others .if compassion and empathy demand from them that which they do not wish to give . . . . .

    and Pat ? they listen to this guy . . . they trust him . . .
    so I guess fundamentalist Christian wives are ‘dispensible’ should they become ill,
    so a spouse can ‘start over’ . .?

    new revelation from Pat Robertson . . . again

    oh dear

    .

    • “…fundementalist wives are ‘dispensable’ should they become ill.” Wives being the operative word.

      Do you wonder if Pat would have given the same advice to a woman about her sick husband?

  22. Those sound like the words of a man who is either tired and, seeing himself in the same situation, has little fight left to bear another’s burden…..or….someone who is trying to be sympathetic to another in a complicated and difficult situation and is looking pragmatically , though through what seems like worldly eyes. He doesn’t want the guy to commit adultrey so he suggests divorce. It’s just a bit odd how quick and easy he seems to come to that conclusion. It just doesn’t seem like grounds for divorce. On the plus side, he suggests taking care of her needs and not complete abandonment. Strange and unexpected.

  23. Both of my parents were afflicted with Alzheimer’s/Dementia. One diagnosed two years before the other. My mother died of its complications and my father will as well. Their love for each other as they faced this challenge together was filled with courage and grace. Not unlike many children, when I was younger and they in good health I could never imagine one of them having to live without the other. But God is faithful: Dad was blessed with not having to know when Mom was gone. What a grace! Pat could never imagine such love.

  24. Does not the Bible allow for concubinage? This would seem a reasonable, practical solution.

  25. I came across this on the Christianity Today website as part of an article. Robertson went on to say that he would understand if someone started another relationship out of a need for companionship so it’s a shame this is such a short clip cutting off the rest of the conversation. I thought he made a valid point about companionship that has not been picked up in all the outrage and anger at what he said about abandonment.
    Someone who has effectively lost their companion to dementia/Alzheimers needs loving support from someone; the need for good friendships and regular fellowship must be immense. Unless we are prepared to come alongside and help to fill some of that need then maybe we shouldn’t condemn someone who has walked away from a very needy spouse. I haven’t come alongside someone like that so I’m not going to start lobbing rocks at anyone who can’t hack it even though I do believe marriage means life and life means a body that is breathing. If I ever have to face this then I hope and pray my Christian community will help fill the hole and help carry the burden.

  26. Well, since Martha hasn’t done it, I guess I have to. In Dante’s “Paradise,” the character of Dante asks about whether it ever allowable to break a vow or whether a broken vow can be compensated for by some other good. Beatrice responds (I’ll paraphrase, since I don’t have a good translation at hand) that the greatest good that God gives man is his free will. When a man vows, he freely surrenders his free will to God — in other words, he restricts his own freedom in promising to do something in a future he knows nothing about. In doing so he gives back to God the greatest thing he has to give. What, Beatrice asks, can compensate for a man’s taking back that gift? What other gift — money, penance, etc. — can ever equal the value of the original vow? Nothing, she says. So that while grace can and does forgive the broken vow, the loss occasioned by the breaking is real.

    As Laura points out so powerfully, our marriage vows mean something. We gave up our gift of future freedom for the sake of love. What compensation could we ever make to our wife/husband and to God for taking back that gift?

    • beautiful and profound words, Damaris. Thanks for taking time to write this.

    • Yes, Damaris. When I counsel couples about to be married, I remind them constantly that their vows aren’t only to each other, but that they are taken “in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. God is a witness to their vows, and His signature seals the promises made. It’s a serious commitment, not to be taken lightly.

  27. I can’t be the only one who thinks wistfully of the wisdom of C. S. Lewis’s final essay, “We Have No ‘Right to Happiness.'” (Here’s a link online, hosted on a Sunni Muslim website, interestingly enough.)

    “The real situation is skillfully concealed by saying that the question of Mr. A.’s “right” to desert his wife is one of “sexual morality.” Robbing an orchard is not an offense against some special morality called “fruit morality.” It is an offense against honesty. Mr. A.’s action is an offense against good faith (to solemn promises), against gratitude (toward one to whom he was deeply indebted) and against common humanity.”

    “A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women.”

    • It sounds like Pat is saying this isn’t a problem after first consulting with an “ethicist”.

      • Perhaps the octogenarian momentarily forgot the ethicist who gets plenty of referrals in his own circle, J. Christ. I think his advice was “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her”

      • I think what Pat said was that it would be better to have an ethicist answer the question, but then he went on to give his opinion about the wife being “already dead as her husband knew her.”

        He should have stopped short of his own opinion, in my estimation.

  28. So I wonder if Adelia Robertson is starting to look at Pat and wonder if it’s ok to leave him pretty soon? (That’s meant to be irony, people, in case it wan’t obvious…)

  29. Note the jump in the video at 1:07. I’ve seen other videos by RightWingWatch.Org that look and sound a lot worse after RWW has gotten their hands on them and edited them than the impression one gets from watching the whole unedited episode in its context.

    So I wouldn’t judge what Pat Robertson says here until you’ve seen the entire unedited segment.

    I would never make a judgment or draw a conclusion based on a RightWingWatch.Org video before seeing the original in its unedited form.

    • This on almost every news outlet. Christanpost has direct quotes from the program.

    • The uncut clip is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZoDMGe5ffw&feature=player_embedded

      Turns out that, when Robertson’s words are considered in the full context, he’s really saying… exactly what it looked like he said.

      (Though I quite willingly grant that RWW is far from the most objective source for politics. Then again, who is these days?)

      • That is why I did not post the whole clip. I don’t think it adds any additional light. In general, I’d be inclined to give Pat the benefit of the doubt if he were just thinking through the issue out loud and expressing sympathy with the husband’s plight. But to do that he need not have said “divorce” with such emphasis, and certainly not to a national TV audience when you are supposed to be giving counsel as a spiritual authority.

        • I guess he stops short of advocating what happened to Terri Schaivo; he says at least put them somewhere to be taken care of. But if it’s not the husband’s fault for wanting companionship, is it also not his fault for wanting to spend his money on his new bride and stop spending nursing home care for the old one?

          This idea that they are “gone” is so disturbing. I guess my dad was “gone”, but even to the end he had brief lucid moments. He could tell me the same story over and over twenty times without realizing he did, but I wouldn’t have traded that moment for anything. Had my mom dumped him off in a rest home, he would have been emotionally crushed. This is so hard to explain. It sounds like Robertson says it just doesn’t matter, that my dad didn’t matter. When a person no longer fulfills your needs, throw them away. It sounds like the culture of death is under new management.

  30. There’s a lot of dark humor there. Emphasis on dark.

  31. To paraphrase the professor who looked like Colonel Sanders in the 1998 epic story of love and life, “Waterboy”…”Something is wrong with Pat Robertson’s medulla oblongata”.

  32. I am very disappointed in Pat’s comments. I love the movie “A Vow to Cherish” done by the Billy Graham film ministry. I think Pat needs to see that film. It’s now on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m7eKHN0lLA
    Praying and trusting God for Pat and others who seem to be going by “feel” instead of faith on this one, as we all do at times and then regret it…(Psalm 107).

  33. If Pat Robertson ails you, James Garner is the antidote.
    http://themasterstable.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/the-pat-robertson-antidote/

  34. ooooooookay! thank God I am not married to that man! I think Pat Robertson should sit down and watch ” The Notebook” THAT IS LOVE IN ACTION!

  35. It’s been a while since there has been a discussion on what the founding fathers meant by “pursuit of happiness”. In enlightenment speak, happiness was tied directly to “summa bonum” – the greatest good. Personal happiness was achieved by contributing to the greatest good of society. It was Machiavelli who introduced what became the mantra, “greed is good”, that personal happiness was achieved through ones own personal greatest good. Pietism already tempts Christians to focus upon themselves; I believe this internal focus opens us to the temptation to accept egotistic philosophies of Machiavelli, Joseph Campbell or Ayn Rand as compatible with Christianity. In doing so, we find ourselves promoting the exact same cultural decay that we claim to be fighting against in our cultural war (without end, as HUG would say).

    • There is a constitutional right to life, but not to receive assistance from others when my life is threatened. The people have the right to pursue happiness; Providence has pre-ordained that only the best obtain it. The rich have no obligation to the poor and the poor have no right to their aid. The rich have the right to be free of compulsory wealth-transfer mechanisms like taxes. Giving, or hoarding, is one’s personal right. So long as we leave each other alone, no rights are violated. This is logical conclusion of the enlightenment message.

      The converse is true, and Robertson’s sage advice is symptomatic of how syncretic evangelicalism has become. The marriage no longer produces the husband any benefit, and the wife’s suffering would be no greater if it ceased. She is a “useless eater” who leads a purposeless existence which drains the husband’s precious resources. This is simply social Darwinism, masquerading as Christian compassion. I ask myself how can “pro-life” evangelical candidates sit silent in these debates, when audiences cheer at 234 executions, or when the audience laughs at a hypothetical where an uninsured man dies in a coma? This is the degenerate face of evangelical Jesus today, because the culture war Jesus is what the public sees the two as being one and the same.

      • I agree with you in part, but not in conclusion. There should be no compulsion to give; rather, it should be out of desire for the greater good. I don’t buy everything that enlightenment teaches; actually, very little. The enlightenment – beginning with capitalism and ending with communism – lacked one key component: new life in Christ. The enlightenment believed that people would give out of the greater good rather than compulsion, but the sinful nature has other plans. I digress.

        But in that line of thought, it would seem that a man would stay with his ailing wife out of the greater good and honor of his wife; as an example of Christ’s love for us – who are often in a state of spiritual coma and dimentia; out of concern for onlooking children and grandchildren. But after watching Clark’s clip from “The Notebook”, I don’t think such arguments are necessary. Love is stronger than death and even Alzheimers. Good God! If a woman stays with a man for most of her life washing his dirty clothes, cooking his meals, and bearing him heirs, why in the hell can’t he repay that devotion by being there to the bitter end – if not for love? I guess I digress again.

        I agree on your last comment. I never saw that comment about the uninsured man at the Republican debates, but the coldness of it all gave me shivers. I have commented here several times regarding the blatant hypocrisy of the pro-life claims of many evangelicals.

        • Both capitalism and communism reach the same conclusion: if a man will not work, he shall not eat. That NT allusion was written into the Soviet constitution. They are both systems reacting to personal greed and social inequity but taking divergent humanistic paths in reacting to it. Neither Hobbes and Mill nor Marx have any solution to offer that resembles authentic Christianity. More digression.