gdp's Comments

Race Relations Project : Letter from an Inmate

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:21:33 +0000

I read this while sitting in a computer lab for class. Try as I might to resist, I found myself tearing up. This letter is one of those things that makes you question your preconceived notions about others. There’s meta-reconsideration within this letter: in seeing the man comforting the other man, the writer reconsidered how he perceived others – making us reconsider how we perceive prisoners. These men aren’t “hardened criminals”, they’re humans who, for the most part, have made bad decisions that have cost them everything. Popular opinion states that prisoners, particularly murders are evil through and through, that there’s no forgiveness or rehabilitation possible. They’re often considered as less than human – as monsters. I’ll be honest and say I’m not exempt from this. My first reaction is usually revulsion, fear, and loathing. Rarely do I consider them human beings first and foremost. That’s a mistake, a rather huge mistake. While you can’t discount or ignore the fact that they’ve committed a heinous crime against another human being, sometimes an innocent one, you also can’t discount that they’re human beings themselves. Human beings with hopes, dreams, emotions, and all. It’s incredibly touching that men who hate each other are there for each other in times of extreme hardship. It’s incredibly touching and eye-opening that men who seemingly have no hope offer what hope and compassion they have to each other so easily, that men with no hope of an outside life ever again create for themselves, and each other, a life of their own. Maybe one of the only ways to truly understand yourself and others is to lose everything. Maybe the only way to be truly compassionate and understanding of others is to first be faced with the utter lack of it yourself. Maybe the only way to truly understand suffering is to first suffer yourself. Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on the death penalty. I feel that it could be appropriate in extreme cases – Hitler-type individuals, for example. Then again, “ultimate” punishment doesn’t leave anybody better off in the end. There are many ways beyond killing someone to serve punishment, to get retribution for crimes. There are fascinating minds inside of the “inhuman” criminals – fascinating human minds.

Race Relations Project : Christian Invaders - the turnaround

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:28:15 +0000

As you say, “The problem with Sam’s lecture was this: it was all propaganda. Just as jihadists are very good at recruiting young men as terrorists, Sam is good at making America look like the bad guy. Anyone can take a bunch of video clips and random quotes to make one giant issue look like something simplified and undoubtedly based on one cause or reason. But this is not the case.” I would have parsed the quote, but it’s important that you know the entirety of what I’m responding to. It looks like you got the point of the lecture, but don’t realize it: ANYONE can take a bunch of clips and soundbites to oversimplify something to support their agenda. Anyone… including the U.S. media. Including the Iraqi and Afghani media. The point of the lecture wasn’t to demonize the United State’s position in the war – it was to show us that nothing is ever a black-and-white issue and what we think we know about issues is not the whole story. Sam’s making America look like a bad guy was intended as exactly what our media does to the Middle East – our media picks and chooses pictures, clips, soundbites, select stories, etc. to rally support for the war and dehumanize actual Middle-Easterners and portray the “enemy” as the opposite of all that’s good and right. We’re all well aware that the Iraq War isn’t a “Christian Invasion”. As you stated: “Because the invasion that is going on is from radical Christians, not the majority of Christianity. Just as the hate towards America is coming from radical Muslims.” That’s exactly the point. To some on the “other” side of the war, it’s seen as a Christian Invasion because of propaganda utilizing the statements and actions of radical Christians – just like some on this side of the war see all insurgent forces as “Muslim Jihadists” because of propaganda utilizing the statements and actions of radical Muslims. Do you see what I did there? People on both sides of this war are going through the same exact things when it comes to propaganda skewed against the “enemy”. Fortunately, it’s easy to see through propaganda, because it rarely stands up to close scrutiny. If everyone took the time to actually inform themselves about who they’re fighting against and why, and also remind themselves that the “enemy” is just as human as the “ally”, then maybe there would be no way for extremism to exist – but then again, the Higher-Ups wouldn’t be able to rally support for a war, so I guess it’s better to keep the masses informed only when it can “support the cause”. What freedoms are we fighting for in Iraq? Freedom from terrorists? Freedom to be the world police? Or is it the freedom to line pockets?

Race Relations Project : This is totally off the hook

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:49:43 +0000

You know what's blatantly, morally offensive to me? Porn. Specifically rape and incest porn. Should it be banned? No, it's protected under the First Amendment. Something shouldn't be banned just because it goes against societal norms. Where would it stop? Where you decide it should?

Race Relations Project : This is totally off the hook

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:45:49 +0000

The Japanese erotic game industry actually stopped producing rape simulators last June, without the help of the government. There are actually censorship laws in Japan, some stricter than those in place in the US, and there's a current bill being debated that will heavily restrict artificial depictions of minors. Food for thought.

Race Relations Project : This is totally off the hook

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:34:58 +0000

Replace every occurrence of the word "video game" with "porn", or even "books", and reread your post. Would you be as angry? I hope to god you would, or else you'd be a hypocrite. Children aren't the only group of people who play video games. A majority of video games are created by and for adults, and thus the M rating - a rating that prohibits sale to a minor under the age of 17 unless given present parental consent. It's not game developers' responsibility to "protect" children from graphic situations, that's all on the parent. Further, your "example" cites a fictional story on a television drama created to titillate viewers - it's not their goal to present facts. That didn't actually happen. Violent video games don't promote violence, just as violent movies and books don't promote violence, either.

Race Relations Project : This is totally off the hook

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:23:08 +0000

You're saying that rape is "Extremely common" in Japanese society. Let's see.... UN Rape Rates per 100,000 Canada: 78.08 Australia: 77.79 USA: 32.05 Sweden: 24.47 UK: 16.23 France: 14.36 S. Korea: 12.98 Germany: 9.12 Russia: 4.78 Taiwan: 4.08 Japan: 1.78 Wait a minute..... I don't think you "know" as much about Japanese society as you think; only as much as you've read in manga. By the way, uncensored depictions of rape in US pornography (you know, with real people) is just as widespread as censored drawings of rape in Japan.

Race Relations Project : This is totally off the hook

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:17:59 +0000

***SAM, PLEASE READ THIS. SERIOUSLY.*** When I first heard that CNN did a report on this, I was actually pretty shocked. Not because of the content of the game, but the fact that CNN is reporting on this NOW. RapeLay has been out since 2006. The game’s been out of print for at least a year; the UN called for an explicit game ban back in august; and rape-style games haven’t been made since June 2009 because the Japanese erotic game industry regulated itself and came to the decision to stop production of games. Regardless, this game was made in Japan, by Japanese law, and never meant to leave its shores. So why is CNN reporting on it now? It’s pretty much a non-issue at this point. My favorite part of this “news story” is where the reporter states, “this country has long produced products the rest of the world would call pornographic.” Holy shit. Japan is getting flak for an out of print game whose genre has ceased to exist that features simulated rape, and yet the story blatantly ignores that the United States has been producing actual, uncensored pornography featuring rape, bondage, and torture scenes for years, unregulated and freely available everywhere, including the “bastion” of Japanese rape games, the internet. We’re worried that these games are being made because our poor kids might be able to get their poor innocent hands on them on the internet? We’re worried about this game that they wouldn’t have known about- and please, pay attention to this- had they not heard about it on CNN? I repeat, kids today would likely NOT KNOW about this OUT OF PRINT, JAPANESE LANGUAGE, NEVER OFFICIALLY EXPORTED GAME had they NOT HEARD ABOUT IT ON NATIONAL NEWS. We’re worried that they could be exposed to Japanese censored anime sex, but not that they can get some Good Ol’ Fashioned All-American ~Uncensored~ Rape Porn that depicts the female stars crying and being abused? Something’s wrong here.. I can’t… I can’t quite… WHAT? Depictions of rape are legal in the United States. CNN is calling for censorship of another country doing the same thing, only not real. So why report on it now? More generic “lol Japan is so weird you guys, look at that!” from the United States? Slow news day? Ethnocentrism on the part of the United States? Here’s an idea: if you’re so worried about the kids, how about you monitor them yourself instead of relying on a nanny state to do it for you. By the way, there’s currently a proposed bill in the works in Japan that would “limit the manner in which ‘nonexistent youths’ are represented as well as clauses that call for the filtering of images of minors online and via mobile phone.”

Race Relations Project : What to do about "white guilt"

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:10:27 +0000

“Do people have to be older, more mature, and out of the realm of their parents/homes to openly discuss race? I argue that...maybe. Although I think it's important to reshape textbooks, I think white guilt will exist regardless until individuals can begin to think freely in a less controlled atmosphere--like in this class, in college.” I agree with you that the ability to think and discuss freely, away from familial prejudices and influences, is necessary in order to actively consider issues like race and white guilt. However, I feel that it’s also the time that white guilt can more easily manifest itself. As a child, I never felt white guilt – why should I have? Why would children consider it? Yes, children learn about the atrocities of slavery, but it seems like there’s some level of disconnect between the slaveholders of the past and the people of today. I feel as though children of all races realize that the white people of the present are not even remotely responsible for African slavery, and most children are too young to realize the far-reaching advantages they might have gained from their forefathers slaveholding. I could be wrong – that’s just my personal observation and opinion. I agree with you that primary history education needs to be reformed, but I’m not sure on how. There would be a lot to cover, and it would be difficult to write it from a neutral position – after all, history is written by the victors. I do think it’s important to teach history accurately – genocide of Native Americans and the rest of the atrocities included. I don’t think it’s necessary to teach from a racial standpoint, though – the color of a conqueror’s skin doesn’t decide whether they will be benevolent or greedy. Maybe THAT’S why white guilt exists: we learn white people did this to this race, white people did that to that race, and focus on that instead of anything else. I think that discussing history in terms of culture rather than race could help – but again, I haven’t considered teaching history in a better way to foster race relations at a young age much until today. As I was saying before, I feel as though white guilt manifests itself later on in life, particularly when one starts to branch out and have the freedom and the incentive to think freely and intently, and actually begin to realize that there’s an issue with race relations and want to do something about it in their own lives. As kids we believe as our parents do, and unless they teach their children that they’re guilty of being white, (something I figure is very unlikely), children wouldn’t even consider it. I could be wrong – maybe white guilt manifests itself differently in children than it does in adults, but personally, I don’t believe it. I understand that what we’re taught about white people as children contributes to white guilt, but I don’t think it becomes an issue until people are old enough to consider the history they’ve learned on their own.

Race Relations Project : Prom or No Prom: Just Don't Let the Queer Students Dance Together

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:35:35 +0000

Every time I hear or read a story about discrimination against anybody in the LGBT community I am one, appalled, and two, forced to ask the question: “Why does it matter to people?” The “it” being another person’s sexuality. Why does what someone chooses to do in their private life matter so much to other people that other people actively try to not only bring them down, but to change the individual? As other people have said: what year is it now? People aren’t just the sum of their parts, and they’re certainly not the sum of their sexuality. Nobody thinks that cancer patients are bad people deserving of discrimination, so why should homosexuals be treated that way? That’s not to equate homosexuality with a terminal illness, but both are something that isn’t chosen. Flip the coin, even: homosexuals don’t think heterosexuals are bad people worthy of discrimination, so why should it be the other way around? I get that people of the older generation are stuck in their ways (and generally pass on those ways to their children) but I don’t understand how, in this day and age, they can remain ignorant about the fact that LGBT people are human beings. Bleeding the same blood and all that. Last night in my Soc 110 class we had students come in and we had a Straight Talk, a talk with LGBTA students that included personal stories and a question and answer session (if anyone gets the chance, definitely check one out.) We started the talk by listing all the homosexual slurs we’d ever heard, and at the end they said something that struck me: most of the slurs were rooted in the physical act of sex. Too many people think of homosexuals as what they do in the bedroom, and not as people living and struggling just like everybody else. Somehow the school higher ups don’t realize that this girl is just another student trying to enjoy her high school career just like everybody else, and see only that she kisses girls. Frankly, I find it immature and ignorant. What’s worse than simply barring her from the prom is the fact that they canceled the whole thing altogether because of her. It’s vile and underhanded – the administrators can not possibly think that she won’t catch any flak for that from her peers. Bullying is hard and prevalent enough in high school, so how do they think other students will react to the administrators all but saying “Prom’s canceled, it’s Constance’s fault, take your frustrations out on her.” It’s as if they’re trying to teach her, and other LGBT students in the school a lesson: this is what happens when you’re gay, so either go straight or endure torment and canceled proms for the rest of your life. It’s a low and disgusting move on the school’s part.

Race Relations Project : Could You Compete With This Woman On A Level Playing Field?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:20:03 +0000

It’s inspiring that Yvrose doesn’t have any first-world advantages yet still works hard and creatively to stretch what she’s given to the fullest extent. To be honest, it humbles and shames me – I don’t work half as hard as she does, and yet seemingly have more. I can only hope to be as driven as her and, to be honest, she’s inspired me to try. I agree with other commenters that feel that she’s figured out and learned all she has partly through necessity. Her (pre earthquake) situation required her to think and work creatively, and it just so happened that she figured out complicated economic strategies on her own through hard work. Though I only know as much about her as the post includes, I’m awed by her, I really am. I have so much respect for people who work hard to try to make something of themselves, and those who have so much intelligence as Yvrose seems to have. After listening to the npr clip, I looked up the follow up to her story. She hasn’t been able to work out a deal with her bank as of yet, but she has set up an account with a micro-credit financial institution that doles out small loans in developing countries with generally low interest rates – people can even lend directly to her through the institution. It’s at http://www.fonkoze.org/ , if anyone is interested in learning more. mqp5040: You said “Yeah, some people got where they were because they worked hard and had no one helping them out. They busted their butt and made it. But does that still mean they deserve to be there when so many others do the same and won’t even get a chance to compete in the same ballpark?” I’ll have to disagree with your rhetorical question there, or rather, say “yes, they do deserve to be there.” I feel that if someone busts their butt to make it somewhere, they deserve to be where they are. Yeah, they may have been implicitly given opportunities through sheer chance of birth into a good family/prosperous country/etc., but the person still worked hard to get where they are and deserve everything they get. The population of the world and the global economy are just too vast to give equal opportunity to everyone, regardless of how hard they work. Like you said, it’s just how the world works – not everyone, most people in fact, aren’t given the best opportunities or even the opportunities they deserve, and must either live with it or work hard to change it. Even if they do work hard to change it, though, they might not be able to. People make do and work hard with the cards that they’re given and hope for the best.

Race Relations Project : The XXX Bible? Who Would've Thought?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:47:42 +0000

I’ll throw my hat in the ring and say that I’m another person who, while raised Christian (Lutheran, specifically, like jlm), I’ve never actually sat down and read the Bible. I’ve never had a reason to – I knew the important stories from going to church and hearing them from others, and, as a kid, didn’t really want to trudge through hundreds of pages of ye’s and thou’s. It seems that my story is similar to that of a lot of other people. I was baptized and went to church and Sunday school under family orders, though was never made to read the Bible or really even had the Bible read to me. I went through confirmation in 7th and 8th grade and went to church by myself every single service, and attended every confirmation class on every Sunday. I, too, half-assed the assignments – I got no enjoyment nor enrichment out of the services, so I’d sit in the church’s library, listen to and summarize the sermon, and leave. For the first year, very class we’d discuss sinning, repenting, other religions and why they’re wrong, what the Bible tells us to do, and what we, as good Christians, should believe. All I got out of this was a strong dislike for organized religion. I remember it very clearly: our teacher said that God can only be talked to and praised at church in fellowship, and my inkling of questioning turned into full-blown disbelief. I remained in class, however, and learned as much as I could, just so I could know about the subject. In my opinion, the more you know about culture, the better. I remained interested in the Bible as a collection of myths. I’ve never really been able to believe that the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally. As jlm stated, some of the things that happen are just plain impossible. I agree with flippyfloppies in that I think things were meant to be taken metaphorically – like, “Here, this is a story about this guy, you see the lesson he learns here? Yeah, take that lesson, it’s a good one, it’ll help you live a better life. But hey, if you don’t, that’s cool too, you might learn the lesson on your own someday.” and “Well hey we’re not that sure about what causes these pretty rainbows, but here’s a story explaining their symbolism!” To me, the Bible parallels every other collection of myths from every other culture and religion in that they are all strictly symbolic and written to teach followers life lessons and about God. Think about it: the average person is more apt to remember a story (especially one that could never happen) than a strict lesson. Was Jonah really swallowed by a whale? No, but his story brings to life the lesson that faith in God and oneself will help one through hard times.

Race Relations Project : Animals vs. Humans vs. Welfare Cheats

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:32:46 +0000

I feel that what’s worse than Bauer referring to those on welfare as animals is the fact that he actually believes what he said. Even if it was “just a slip of the tongue”, it was a slip of the tongue stating what he actually meant instead of a euphemism that many might not have caught up to. However, a statement like: “You know why? Because they breed! You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that.” is hardly a slip of the tongue. It’s a clear statement calling those on welfare mindless animals who know only to eat and breed. It’s ignorant, it’s bigoted. You can not get much more clear than that. As other commenters have stated, perhaps he should live the life of the average welfare recipient and see how it truly is to live “like an animal”. Again, as other commenters have pointed out, Bauer’s pseudo-apology is meaningless, issued only as an ass-covering in the wake of the controversy his words created. He doesn’t even apologize for what he said – only for the fact that he showed his hand so clearly as to offend those he spoke so ill of. He wishes he’d used a different metaphor. He should have used a different mindset. Maybe his speaking as such is a good thing. It shows us who he actually is and what he believes, instead of what he wants voters to believe he believes. Perhaps it can also raise awareness for those who actually (and needfully) are on welfare. Perhaps it was a blessing in disguise. The even greater issue at hand is that he most certainly is not the only one who feels the way he does, or else he would not still have a job, at least in a fair and reasonable world (which, I’m sadly finding, we are not living in). It’s frightening to think that people with such closed-minded worldviews make decisions for the majority of us and, if they stick to just enough of what their constituents want, they will continue to be kept in power to do so for as long a run as the law allows. What makes people believe that they are better than others, simply because they are more affluent? Money, affluence, and power do not a good person make. I simply can not wrap my head around the fact that there are people who consider others no better than beasts. At the end of the day, we are all the same and want the same things: to be happy, to be healthy, and for those we love to have the same.

Race Relations Project : Avatar and the White Man's Burden

Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:29:30 +0000

As many others have pointed out, the Messiah Complex column certainly made me stop and think. The oft-used plot device has been around for a very, very long time, and I can’t say that I nor other people haven’t noticed it – I think we have noticed it, but immediately forgot it, as it’s so familiar to us and apparently deeply ingrained in our culture of storytelling. Looking back, using the white guy as a messiah to a different culture seems silly and absurd to me, but I get it. Yeah, we white people are trying to validate and legitimatize our rampant colonialism (which goes on even today: worldwide McDonald’s, anyone?) by saying, “Hey, we mean well! Some of us are bad, especially the big scary corporations and hired military, but good will come out of it! We promise!” However, in addition to self-aggrandizing, I think one of the reasons we use that basic plot so much is because it seems like it could happen. How many legends or prophecies speak of saviors who will come from afar and look and act differently from the people, or something similar? I may be wrong – that might simply be a device used in stories and movies to legitimatize the white messiah plot. To use a Disney-esque movie as an example, The Road to El Dorado uses a plot similar to that. The two main characters (plus a horse) find themselves worshipped in ~the new world~ by natives, as their faces (as well as the horse’s, oddly enough) bear a striking resemblance to those of the deities (and their horse) of said natives, as inscribed on a big huge rock. These two take advantage of this, get found out, etc etc, and these two white guys (and their horse) wind up saving the city that they’ve grown to love from the famous Cortez. I could go on and on and on with examples crazy similar to this, but the point is to further show that this complex, issue, whatever you want to call it, is more prevalent than I, and probably many others, thought, especially in movies, and that it’s utilized in more ways than just “dude defects from his culture to join and save another that is being threatened by his own”. Do I think it’s an issue that needs to be rectified? Not really, but that could just be because it’s the water I’ve been living in. I think the bigger message in Avatar (and Pocahontas, etc etc) is that it, along with many other movies, present big corporations as greedy jerk-offs who will exploit and kill and destroy in order to turn a profit. While this may be true in some cases, the movies really only present the story from one side: the side of the exploited, killed, and destroyed, and I can’t honestly believe that it’s as black and white as that.

Race Relations Project : The Enlightened "West" Knows Best

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:59:05 +0000

If I remember correctly, this isn’t the first time Muslim dress faced persecution in France. A few years ago, a school enacted a ban on hijabs (which was summarily protested, though I don’t know what came of it.) To put it simply, enacting such a ban is both ignorant and ethnocentric. As many commenters (and Sam) have stated, their wearing of traditional garb harms nobody. The two women interviewed in the news piece expressly stated that they would show their face for any reason deemed necessary, but they would still wear their burqas no matter what the law stated. I don’t know if many are aware of this, but “Women of the Veil” (as muslim women are sometimes called) have been a tool for western propaganda for almost 100 years. For example, on May 16, 1958, French colonists (oh France, why must you be so terrible about this…?) in Algeria rallied women to its cause by having French women “solemnly unveil” Muslim Algiers at a demonstration – a propaganda technique devised in order to make women believe that French colonization was for the good of the people. (Read Lila Abu-Lughod’s “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others, a fascinating read by a Middle-Eastern anthropologist that discusses the topic in full detail.) The whole “these women are downtrodden! Look at how they hide their faces and bodies from everyone because men are telling them to do it! Terrorist men!!” tactic is incredibly stale – thank you Laura Bush for employing that selfsame tactic in a speech to rally us womenfolk up for the war on those dang terrists. As Abu-Lughod discusses, the real cultural reasons behind the burqa and hijab were never discussed nor expored – after all, that wouldn’t lead to the us-versus-primitive-them mentality we needed to get the war off of its feet. Many, if not most, of these women are not wearing their traditional coverings due to repression. Many, if not most, do it because of tradition and in order to be closer to God by following said traditions. The Quran may not expressly say for women to cover themselves, but tradition does. Nobody is being forced to do it, least of all in France, and nobody is being negatively affected for it. Banning the burqa wouldn’t be liberating to anyone – what’s so liberating about showing skin, worrying about looking perfect, wearing uncomfortable clothes, and going against generations and generations (and generations) of religious and cultural tradition? There’s nothing feminist about restricting the rights of females; there’s nothing liberating about enacting a frivolous law that serves to repress freedom of religious pursits. “An it harm none, do as ye will.”

Race Relations Project : Last Name begins with "B"

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:25:46 +0000

word

Race Relations Project : Clubbing the "Bejesus" Out of Rationality

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:27:42 +0000

I think what’s more disturbing is that Pat Robertson seems to truly believe the things he says – how else can he say it with such conviction, with such fire and brimstone burning behind his rheumy eyes? Comments like his are, to me, part of the antiquated mindset that we’re (slowly) moving ourselves out of, a superstitious mindset that occurs when there is complete ignorance of how the world works. I understand turning to God when things get too difficult to handle, but crediting God with every great and terrible thing that happens is simply unrealistic – I highly doubt He (or She) cares all that much about what we do at this point. Wouldn’t one think that our Great and Merciful God would take pity on those in need, those who undoubtedly prayed with the deepest fear and conviction for help, regardless of the supposed sin of their (great-great-great-grand-) fathers? I guess Haitians are simply too dark to be saved by JC. It brings to light the hypocrisy of the extreme fundamental “good Christian”. Preach peace, love, and acceptance, but anything that’s less than exactly like you which doesn’t agree with every belief you hold deserves intense stigma, punishment, and every bad thing that could possibly come to it. Robertson himself claims that Protestantism (a sect of Christianity, for chrissakes), “harbors the spirit of the Antichrist”. What kind of mindset must you be in to denounce people of what is essentially the same exact faith? This man also denounces Islam as Satanic (for a religion that doesn’t feature Satan) and Hinduism as demonic and has blamed many tragedies on things that have nothing to do with them. Apparently homosexuals and feminists are partly to blame for 9/11, instead of, you know, the actual perpetrators and [insert debatable reason here]. This man has also frequently played Nostradamus, claiming that God is speaking directly to him and issuing specific predictions for specific years, and, when they don’t come to fruition, claims that prayer saved us from the terrible things that were coming to us. Good cop-out, I guess. I think that, perhaps, Robertson is squawking from his pulpit in this way in order to attract attention to his dwindling flock. Think about it: when you hear about the latest crazy thing Robertson said, you’re more likely to give him the attention he and the 700 Club so sorely crave. I honestly think that this is a stunt to gain more viewers, and eventually, somehow, followers – how else could his handlers and producers allow him to say such things? As I said, I think that Pat Robertson, (real name Marion), believes what he says as the deepest truth. However, I can’t accept that his producers and anyone else involved in the 700 Club actually believe in what he’s saying – it’s just too absurd and medieval to comprehend.