Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Why it’s time to tune out Pat

Sunday, Jan. 15, 2006 | 7:44 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. His column appears on Sunday and on occasion during the week.

And so the cultural war continues. But what a curious turn it has taken.

I am about to commit the cardinal sin of public discourse. I am going to talk about politics and religion. But, this time, I am going to talk about them at the same time, in the same place and in the same way. That's because over the past three decades, the religious movement to involve itself in the politics of this country has succeeded and the political movement to embrace religion as a cynical path toward election and power has also succeeded.

And in the midst of the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings in which religiosity is at the core (read that the overturning of Roe v. Wade in order to appease a minority of the country who oppose a woman's right to control what she does with her body), it is even more telling because it points out the capturing of the political processes that for the first 200 years of our existence was so scrupulously avoided, has succeeded.

This column, though, is not about Judge Alito, who will almost certainly be confirmed. It is about the man who created the scenario for a man of Alito's obvious intellect to be advanced to the high court, the man who understands that once enough Alitos sit in those chairs at the Supreme Court that God's will -- according to this fellow -- will be done.

So let's talk about the man who would be king of the universe -- in this world and the next -- and whose interpretation of God's will is the only one that matters. Let's talk about Rev. Pat Robertson.

Now, it is not my purpose to kick a man when he is down. I would rather get to him long before the fall begins. But I, like many others, am guilty of propping the man up lo these many years because I made a political decision, a compromise if you will, and that was that. Since Robertson was so strongly supportive of the existence of the State of Israel, then the rest of his pronouncements about the way Americans should live, work, play and pray was a small price to pay because friends of Israel were not always easy to find. Even though the reasons have always existed for the American people to support that tiny Jewish state -- chief amongst them is the fact that Israel is America's only steadfast, loyal and stalwart ally in that part of the world -- the politics of oil has always been a strong opponent to our country's doing the right thing.

At some point, though, many people realized that what Robertson and his friends were doing in the name of advancing Christianity -- even in places and amongst people who weren't the least bit interested -- was tredding quite heavily upon the very core of our constitutional form of government and the very basis for its existence. And that is the right of individuals to be free of government oppression and to read, speak, and pray as they wish without government interference.

The only people who didn't see this coming have been the politicians who embraced the likes of Robertson -- believing as they are wont to do that he speaks for the entirety of Christian America -- because they saw a way to win elections. An intense minority of people are far more likely to vote for someone who espouses their views or, at least, pretends to do so. And in this modern American world in which elections turn on modest electoral participation, religious voters have carried the day in many of what we now call the red states. It is a very cynical but very effective way to run an election.

But now Pat Robertson has gone too far, even for the politicians who most times don't know if "far enough" exists. Whether it is an advancing age or a growing, uncontrollable urge to rule the mortal world, Robertson has spoken for God one too many times. And his Christian brethren and a few politicians who can no longer pack his Biblical megalomania, have tried their best to cut him loose.

The only guy who I think agrees with Robertson that ailing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon deserves to lay near death because he gave some of God's land away in the pursuit of peace is that nutjob who runs Iran. They both agree that God is punishing Sharon. The real question, not to change the subject, is who is going to punish Iran now that it has clearly embarked on a course that could give that terrorist state weapons of mass destruction in a relatively short period of time? Heard this one before? This time it is absolutely real.

The Rev. Robertson thinks that Sharon upset God by giving some land back to the Palestinians in the pursuit of peace. And he said so. What he forgot to say is that in Matthew 5:9 it says that "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."

So, I suppose that God would rather have some ratty old, practically useless land than peace amongst his children. And in Matthew 24:6-7 it is explained that even though a peace may not be perfect, it is far better than war.

Seems to me that Christianity prefers those who seek peace, which means that the God with whom Roberston claims such a close relationship would never strike a man like Sharon down for trying to attain that peace. So why would Pat say such an awful thing?

Maybe he really isn't in touch with God. Maybe he is no different than you and I, except that we have a decent streak in us that would never let us kick a man when he is down and possibly dying. And if Robertson isn't the man of God everyone thinks he is, maybe the politicians better look elsewhere for spiritual and political guidance.

I've got an idea. Why don't we encourage our political leaders to look to their places of worship for their spiritual guidance and look to the voters of this country for their political marching orders. And, lest we the people get confused, maybe we should do the same thing.

I know that is a novel approach these days, but it was good enough for the Founding Fathers. It should be good enough for us.

archive