Dispatches from the Creation Wars

His son may be worse.

Posted by: Lance | December 15, 2009 8:49 PM

Says you, chri

Posted by: Copernic | December 15, 2009 9:03 PM

No, the other tragic thing is that there was no moment of "Oh shit, I really am just plain dead."

That's the problem with materialism; there's no vindication.

"See, I really don't exist!"

Posted by: BaldApe | December 15, 2009 9:06 PM

I grew to hate Roberts even more after reading Randi's The Faith Healers.

Now, if only a truck would hit Peter Popoff...

Posted by: Ranson | December 15, 2009 9:08 PM

In all fairness to Oral, I am grateful for Julia.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 15, 2009 9:14 PM

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker.

No he's not, he's an asshat. Mostly ass.

I'm an atheist so shove your next kneejerk response. I hardly care who the person was. To speak of the dead in such a way just shows how much worse you are then them. Totally classless.

Posted by: James | December 15, 2009 9:26 PM

Why the prohibition on speaking the truth about dead people? It's not as if his family were here - that is classless, to intrude upon their grief. But on a blog, where you are free to express your opinion? Why should his death make him immune to criticism? Commemorate his death the way he lived - with lies? Sorry, I agree with Ed - good riddance to that waste of human life. I'll save my compassion for the people he's harmed over his lifetime.

Posted by: Badger3k | December 15, 2009 9:33 PM

"To speak of the dead in such a way just shows how much worse you are then them. Totally classless."

I really don't comprehend this sentiment. If while he lived Oral Roberts was a fraud who was actively making the world a worse place, and it was OK to denounce him for it then, why is it suddenly unclassy to point it out now?

And regardless of whether it is or is not "classless" to point it out, the fact remains that the world is a better place without Oral Roberts.

Posted by: Jacob Wintersmith | December 15, 2009 9:38 PM

James:

To speak of the dead in such a way just shows how much worse you are then them.

What's next James, are you going to burn every history book that denigrates those who harmed others?

And no, Ed is not 'worse then them' when he exposes those who do evil, dead or alive, and he's certainly not worse than those who actually did the evil he exposes. In fact it's a direct contribution to the general welfare.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 15, 2009 9:51 PM

touch not God's anointed and do his prophets no harm.

I suppose that slimy shysters like Oral Roberts, however, are fair game?

for your words you shall you surly be punish.

Who are you calling surly?

Posted by: DaveL | December 15, 2009 9:51 PM

His son may be worse.

As a con man, he undoubtedly is, but fortunately he's also an incompetent buffoon who has already lost control of his family's most valuable asset, ORU.

Posted by: tacitus | December 15, 2009 9:54 PM

If there was any chance of Oral Robert's family reading this blog, then I'd say celebrating his death is in poor taste. I also think it's a slippery slope to Palestinians partying after 9/11. But in this case, yeah the guy was a net loss on the world. No point in lying about it.

Posted by: Brandon | December 15, 2009 10:00 PM

Brandon, the point is that there is a large difference between celebrating someone's death and being glad someone is dead. Even so, the fact that the man was "a net loss on the world" completely overrides his family's feelings on the matter. They can continue to love his memory and have whatever fantasy they want of what a good man he was.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 15, 2009 10:28 PM

Brandon @ 23:

If there was any chance of Oral Robert's family reading this blog, then I'd say celebrating his death is in poor taste.

Oral Roberts brought direct harm to my family members, so fuck him and any of his family that continue to do his work or benefited from it. They deserve the same discretion that the family of any convicted criminal who harmed others gets when they die - hardly any.

This isn't a rant against you Brandon. I appreciate and usually swing your way on not kicking a dead horse. But I know first-hand the harm he's done and how he'll be celebrated over the next several days in many parts of the country. So a dose of justified irreverence in forums like this is welcomed.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 15, 2009 10:30 PM

If you want respect when you're dead, you better earn it when you're alive. Because just dying doesn't earn you shit.

Posted by: Dugglebogey | December 15, 2009 10:32 PM

I see DJ beat me to it.

Posted by: Taz | December 15, 2009 10:38 PM

Dingojack, if you actually practice what you preach, Oral Roberts' family is holding a public memorial in Tulsa. Make your way down there and see how many rants you can get off before security kicks you out. Maybe get the Phelps family to join in, I'm sure they can find a reason to protest. Bonus points if you make Roberta Potts, who has had nothing to do with her father's enterprise, cry. Show me video proof and I will personally pay for your travel expenses and loss of salary.

Posted by: Brandon | December 15, 2009 10:56 PM

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker.

No he's not, he's an asshat. Mostly ass.

I'm an atheist so shove your next kneejerk response. I hardly care who the person was. To speak of the dead in such a way just shows how much worse you are then them. Totally classless.

Posted by: James | December 15, 2009 9:26 PM

I just consulted with a 900 ft Jesus who informed me that you are a dumbfuck.

He also said that you should give me $5,000. I hope the check's in the mail. Asshat.

Posted by: Wes | December 15, 2009 10:59 PM

Another shitbag, bigoted, con-artist-for-jesus™ bites the dust.

Good. Fucking. Riddance.

Posted by: Rick R | December 15, 2009 11:08 PM

You say he deserved to die but you would have fought for his free speech. Some principles you have.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 15, 2009 11:09 PM

Fantastic job criticizing the substance of my argument, Ryan.

Posted by: Brandon | December 15, 2009 11:11 PM

Brandon - Really? Where and when? The airfares, car hire, petrol, hotels etc. would be kinda expensive for you, but the experience would be well worth it for all concerned. Maybe I should call up John Saffron (he loves getting up people's noses) and a film crew. I smell doco.
Or more cost effectively I can say what I think electronically, with full expectation that anyone else (including Oral's Family) can rebut my arguments about the harm their kinsman has done with their own arguments.
Besides, is it more of a criticism in person? When Oral Roberts was fulminating against the 'evils of Homosexuality' (or whatever) did he do it in the Stonewall, or tucked up in his pulpit?
You want call me a coward come here and do it my face :) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 11:14 PM

That's like saying I have a right to do whatever I want with my penis. Oh wait, I do.

Posted by: Bro | December 15, 2009 11:14 PM

Wes: I offer the following criticism of you comment...
Bro: I retort by pointing out the fact that I'm a rapist.

...Do I really need to make a counterargument?

Posted by: Wes | December 15, 2009 11:19 PM

I think Bro made a typo. It makes more sense the way but is less hilarious.

Posted by: Brandon | December 15, 2009 11:29 PM

Thank you, Bro, for taking this comment thread to new realms of the insane and disgusting. The same comment thread where you decried someone else's lack of principles for profaning the dead. Yes, I can totally see what you were talking about now.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 15, 2009 11:41 PM

I'm an atheist so shove your next kneejerk response. I hardly care who the person was. To speak of the dead in such a way just shows how much worse you are then them. Totally classless.

The evil Roberts did lives after him. Pointing this out is the least we can do.

...you sniveling little concern troll.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 15, 2009 11:50 PM

Can we stop with the concern troll accusation? A concern troll is an enemy who poses as a friend and expresses concern to sew doubt in the group. Somebody who is already a member of your group but disagrees with something you do is not a concern troll. Unless you're arguing that James is actually an evangelical Christian who pretends to be an atheist, then he is not a concern troll.

Posted by: Brandon | December 15, 2009 11:59 PM

To see where I'm coming from, imagine a hypothetical future where men have been liberated:

Wes and Bro are happily boning their women in the countryside when suddenly a big black guy starts violating their cleaning lady.

As a man, I can assure you that the future you describe is not one in which men have been liberated. It is instead a future in which men have become pawns of your perverted and repugnant imagination. I want no part of it.

And thanks for adding some racism to your sexism. As if you weren't repulsive enough already...

Posted by: Wes | December 16, 2009 12:10 AM

Please, ORAL ROBERTS?....he's a world wide joke, do your research, He hoaxed millions of people outta millions of dollars, his kids are jokes, these people never made an honest dime i they're life and probably never will! This country can do without people like Oral Roberts, lets be realistic a 900 ft Jesus?? Come'on, and begging for money like a baby, claiming that if he didn't raise millions of dollars that God would call him hoe, this man was a con artist, a thief, it's a good thing he's gone!!

Posted by: Nick | December 16, 2009 12:14 AM

To speak of the dead in such a way just shows how much worse you are then them. Totally classless.

Negative. Roberts was an evil, despicable, con man who bilked thousands of poor people out of money to line his own pockets. He even sold "holy" water which turned out to be Tulsa tap water. (Not great water, having lived in Tulsa.)

Roberts and his empire is totally evil and deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on it and more.

Posted by: Doc Bill | December 16, 2009 12:19 AM

Ed, nooo! Dammit.

We could have rallied together around our common hatred of Bro. You know. To heal the wounds from the boob thread.

Well there goes your peace prize, mister.

Posted by: Leni | December 16, 2009 1:08 AM

Geeze the Queen Mum must have been truly evil, she died aged 101. :) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2009 1:38 AM

Wait a second, Leni, there were boob thread wounds? I've been having such a good time preparing plans for my topless gymnasium!

Posted by: Damien | December 16, 2009 2:10 AM

How people speak of the dead says a great deal about us, IMO. When someone dies no one can hurt them again. It doesn't matter where you believe they wind up at. Nothing will can hurt or help them in any way.

What's left are loved ones. Regardless of any negative feelings one may have for this man, the words spoken won't matter to the man that passed, but they might to a family who is feeling the loss.

No matter my personal feelings toward someone, speaking such hatred has only negative benefits.

Posted by: cyn | December 16, 2009 2:35 AM

cyn, it's not "hatred" to mention what the person did, was and represented.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 16, 2009 2:43 AM

History is full of dead people who were assholes and we point it out all the time, Yeah good riddance Saddam Hussien, Screw you John wayne gacey,So long See you later Buh Bye Jim Jones and last but not least. Ding Dong the prick is dead, So Long Oral Roberts

Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 16, 2009 2:57 AM

I say demonize him!! Its one way to get heard and hopefully people will then do something about it.

Or even notice that they're living like he did, and stop and think whether this is really how THEY want to be remembered. Let us all play the Ghost of Christmases To Come.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 16, 2009 4:01 AM

Oral was never as much fun as his lesser known brother Anal and you don't even want to know what his sister was called.

Posted by: Matty | December 16, 2009 5:33 AM

Matty - That wasn't his sister, it was his cross-dressing, closeted brother, Latent. :) -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2009 6:16 AM

From Bro's blog:

Bro has a blog? And he's a Palinite?

Oy.

Posted by: DaveL | December 16, 2009 6:42 AM

And if there really is a God who punishes people for their sins, that bastard is rotting in hell right now.

That's one of the things that always blows me away about these guys: If their theology was in any way valid, they're ALL up for box seats in the nastiest part of Hell.

And Jesus Himself would be tempted to personally kick their asses--much as you or I might wish to mess up someone who'd committed identity theft against us.

Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 16, 2009 8:19 AM

Why would criticism of Roberts being any more painful to his family after he's dead than when he was alive? If they weren't aware that he was considered a bloodsucking conman before, they should have been.

Posted by: Taz | December 16, 2009 9:06 AM

Ed's post was absolutely appropriate because.

1) When a bad person is in the news in a positive or neutral way it is a public service to remind people what they are/were really like.

2) The fact that there will be no more victims of his scams is a good thing and worth celebrating.

Now if he was planning to go to the funeral spit in everyones face and scream "I'm glad you're miserable" then the advocates of respect might have a point but writing the truth on a blog, not so much.

Posted by: Matty | December 16, 2009 9:21 AM

Re: Speaking ill of the dead --
It would be classless to speak ill of the dead directly to his bereaved friends and family. This is not out of concern for the dead, but the living. While there should be some hightened sensitivity while the family is grieving, but overall, this is the same as in life, I may tell you youre an asshole, but Im less likely to tell your mother.

It is also classless to speak ill of the dead if you hadnt or wouldnt during their life. Unless some major new information comes to light after the persons death, this makes you look like a coward.

Ed (as well as most of the others slagging off on Oral) are not speaking to the bereaved, and Im confident they would have said just as bad things during Oral's life. So lets cut the "speaking ill of the dead" song.

Oral was a nasty parasite who scammed millions of people and influenced this country's politics for the worse. He pedaled bigotry and hate, and made millions off of it. As far as Im concerned, he was low-life scum, I said so when he was alive and Ill continue to say it now that hes dead.

Posted by: Dave | December 16, 2009 9:59 AM

Re "speaking ill of the dead:"

Hunter S Thompson's obit of Richard Nixon comes to mind. Fuckers like Tricky Dick and Oral earned that sort of remembrance.

Posted by: Coragyps | December 16, 2009 10:14 AM

xebecs @88 already made the point I was going to make. If society viewed Oral Roberts as the charlatan that he was, then I agree it would be tacky to spit on his grave so soon after his death. But rather than a shrug and perhaps a well-wish to relatives upon the death of a conman, he's going to be glorified and praised. A counterpoint to that is not just acceptable, it's necessary.

If everybody already knew Roberts was a bad man, then I would agree that the day after his death is probably not the nicest time to remind everyone what a bad man he was. But most people don't realize he was a bad man, and now is the time to try and ensure his legacy is appropriate to his despicable behavior.

Posted by: James Sweet | December 16, 2009 10:21 AM

touch not God's anointed

WHAT IF IT'S CONSENSUAL???!!!

and do his prophets no harm. for your words you shall you surly be punish.This I decree in Jesus Name

SHOULDN'T THAT READ "BE PUNISH[ED] IN A SURLY FASHION"???!!!

Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | December 16, 2009 10:49 AM

Semi-judgemental ramble follows...

Ordinarily I'm very leery about speaking ill of the dead, especially in the wake of people like Fred Phelps disrupting funerals of people they don't like. Generally (I repeat GENERALLY) I think it's a good thing for people to pause a bit in their criticism of one who has just died, simply as a civil gesture to recognize that a) he's dead, so he's out of our jurisdiction; b) we're all equal in our mortality, so maybe we shouldn't be too quick to celebrate a death, because death isn't about punishment and isn't personal -- it happens to all of us; and c) when someone has died, it's not a bad thing to stop our fight against him (right or wrong) long enough to make a more forgiving summation of his life.

This isn't a theistic thing to me, or a be-nice-or-you'll-be-punished thing; it's more of a standard ritual of civility that can, at least in theory, give people an opportunity to pause in our intense worldly disputes and maybe (I repeat MAYBE) see some decency in each other across our ideological and other divides.

This does not mean we should suddenly be silent about the truth of whatever evil things the dead guy did, or that we should all deliver incincere eulogies for people who didn't deserve them in life. In all honesty, I'm not really sure what it DOES mean in practical terms; maybe stick to facts and take a temporary break from name-calling?

PS: Here's an idea I got when Falwell died: if you really want to trash the dead, right after they've died, do it with their own words and actions as history recorded them.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 11:00 AM

@Raging Bee: I'm not going to pause in my criticism of someone just because he died. Dying doesn't confer any special status other than of being dead - it doesn't suddenly make up for being a hateful person. The fact is, Oral Roberts was a pitiful excuse for a human being, and the world probably is better off with his death. Just because it isn't nice doesn't make it any less true or heartfelt.

Contrast this with what Fred Phelps does: he doesn't just speak ill of the dead, he lies and spreads a hateful message about the person. We're here talking about what Oral Roberts did to earn our ill regard; Phelps would simply spout his bigotry and blame it on his god. There is a distinct difference between the two types of behavior. If you want to be nice about the whole affair, that is your prerogative, but it isn't reasonable to expect the same from others.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 16, 2009 11:28 AM

Ed, how did you read my mind?! Great post.

Posted by: Nathan | December 16, 2009 11:46 AM

Is there a statute of limitations on honesty?

If there is one, it certainly didn't apply to many other people who have died recently. Saddam Hussein, for instance. Or someone more akin to Oral Roberts in the con-man department, Ken Lay. People publicly spoke ill of these men when they died, and rightly so IMO.

Posted by: AL | December 16, 2009 3:10 PM

That fraud robbed some of my relatives. Also I have read some of the crap his church mailed out to bring in the cash. It was dishonest, immoral and very likely that Oral didn't believe in that crap himself. So if his family gets hurt feelings over people telling the truth about their millions/year fraud - fuck them. They are just as guilty.

Posted by: ursa major | December 16, 2009 5:04 PM

I'm pretty sure that only Roberts' son is involved in the con game, and he's sucking at it. The rest of his family has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Brandon | December 16, 2009 6:08 PM

The entire universe and all those beings in it would be vastly better today had he been stillborn.

Posted by: Ron Hager | December 16, 2009 7:54 PM

Brandon - I repeat, where did the family think the wads of money came from, a long lucky streak at the track?
As you pointed out earlier, Roberta Potts distanced herself from this evil charlatan, if she knew, why didn't the others? Perhaps they knew but simply didn't care. - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2009 10:44 PM

Randall - Nuh uh, sorry, 'blame the victim' won't wash. Roberts knowingly solicited the funds, if he hadn't money wouldn't have been sent. He instigated the fraud, his family (for the most part) benefited from it, at the expense of the most vulnerable.
If he had ripped off the richest five hundred (who could have easily afforded it), and distributed the money into charities, your 'suckers got burned' attitude might be OK, in this case, it's not really morally acceptable.
As to the 'suckers need religion' theory, well that may be so, but there are plenty of religions that don't try to squeeze a disabled pensioner out of the last of their life savings (to feed the preacher's own personal greed and self-aggrandisement) on the promise of a guaranteed miracle, (or at least it's to a much, much lesser extent). Roberts' congregation didn't leave because he lied to them, knowingly passing on false information for his 'marks' to act on and lose. Classic fraud. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | December 17, 2009 12:23 AM

I have to say that I have been coming to this blog for some time now, I am a moderate to progressive Christian and I find your articles on the right illuminating and frightening buT i will not be coming to this blog anymore.

I may not of been a fan of Oral Roberts, I think that is theology was faulty and dangerous, he was also a human being and to speak that badly about the dead "rot in peace" " The only thing tragic about his death is that it didn't happen decades earlier." shows the lack of compassion that you have. although if you died, The fundamentalist might speak ill of you just like you of them.

But that doesn't make it right. I pray for Oral Roberts that God will merciful on him but to speak that awful is just plain bad and I will no longer peruse your blogs

Posted by: AvoiceCRYING33 | December 17, 2009 1:11 AM

I wonder if AvoiceCRYING33 has the same level of concern* for those Roberts stole from and their families, who will have to deal with the consequences for many years to come, (all so Roberts could puff-up his ego and get rich on an afterlife scam), being hooked on a milder form of the same scam, I'm betting not. - DJ
-------------
* enough to post (twice) a paragraph, to tell us how mean we are to point out that Roberts was a lying scumbag, who WITH MALICE AFORETOUGHT hurt others in a weaker position than himself, now he's dead (as if having a pulse or not changes that reality). Of course it was a hit and run flounce 'cause the truth of the matter is beyond much doubt.

Posted by: DingoJack | December 17, 2009 1:53 AM

@Taz #30: Aren't there laws against necrophilia? Besides, I wouldn't get anywhere near Anal Roberts if people offered to pay me. Oh well, time to party and celebrate his going from stinking rich to just plain stinking. It's such a pity there is no god to get rid of folks like ol' Anal.

Posted by: MadScientist | December 17, 2009 5:54 AM

I believe that Oral Roberts was a direct descendent of the Pharisees people with a twisted version of faith that exploits instead of frees. He fleeced his flock and gave Jesus a Bad name I believe, but the difference is Jesus commandmend me to love my enemies The viterol on this site against not just Oral Roberts but Fred Phelps, an even more dangerous man who twists the Word of God but I don't wish him death, I pray that he will unhearden his heart and unstiff his kneck and actualy let God into his heart because someone who is a true follower of The Lord would not act the way that he does.

Posted by: AVoiceCRYING33 | December 17, 2009 11:19 AM

Re #97, and others expressing similar sentiments: Dying doesn't confer any special status ...

Oh, I don't know. Some people are definitely improved by dying.

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | December 17, 2009 5:12 PM

Ironically, all folks on earth will bow before Jesus at the Judgment Day. TV preachers who have profaned God's Word as well as non-believers will all be in the fires of hell. Hell is described as total blackness with a fierce heat that never ends. Just go and sit in the woods on a dark night by yourself and see how one night feels. Also, don't take a gun with you for protection. Who in their right mind wants to be associated with scumbags of the earth in hell for ever and ever? The New Testament gives believers a way to avoid hell. James, the brother of Jesus, wrote how to treat other people. The Book of Acts tells you how to become a Christian. There are eight examples of people being baptized into the Lord's church. It is not just believing but taking some actions with your beliefs. The irony of ironies is non-believers and scamming TV preachers will all be in the same hell together. Knowing who will be there should encourage you not be a participant with them.

Posted by: DW | December 19, 2009 12:27 PM

Total blackness? Then how in God's name are we gonna play D&D?
How?!

Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 19, 2009 11:17 PM

I'm from Tulsa. I frequently visit the News8 website. The local politicians have been falling all over themselves in praise of Roberts. In one particular article Jim Inhofe, one of our state senators, praised Roberts for "putting Oklahoma on the map".

I responded:

"Oral was a true innovator. He started off scamming poor farmers under tents in rural Oklahoma, but soon saw the potential of television to spread his scam to a larger audience. There have been many imitators: Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn, Elmer Gantry to name just a few. None could skin'em quite like Oral. It's a shame a great city like Tulsa is so closely associated with this charlatan. I hope Richard gets thrown in prison and they rename ORU to something more respectable - Bernie Madoff University maybe."

One following post reminded me that I too will die (Yeah, I was afraid that might happen). The writer then goes on to express his hope that I receive the same respect I have just shown to Roberts. This man spent his entire adult life ripping off the desperate and the gullible and I'm not supposed to say anything out of respect for dead when others are pissing all over themselves in praise. Someone else pointed out how beneficial ORU has been for the economy in south Tulsa. I guess that makes a life of thievery OK. Pathetic.

Posted by: Montym | December 20, 2009 10:45 PM

to end you confusion of Spiritual things

My confusion of spiritual things came to an end when I realized that "spiritual things" was synonymous with "imaginary things".

God bless Oral Robert,He has taught me to be a GIVER MARK.

Fixed.

Posted by: DaveL | December 22, 2009 11:49 AM

I find these Godbots quite amusing. Their imaginary friend in the sky will protect them. He will make sure that if they go to the right magic house, on the right magic day, and say the right magic words, they will live forever in a magical land of happiness. Then, in light of these "compelling" arguments they make in a vain attempt to convince us that their magic man is the right one, they are shocked and upset when we don't immediately rush out to join their magic club.

The irony is, all the while they tell us that we're arrogant, full of ourselves, etc., they're the ones who insist that they have all the answers and that they are the ones chosen by their invisible man in the sky, out of all of the billions of creatures on this planet and the billions of others likely to be in the universe, they are the chosen ones ... but we're arrogant? Riiiiiight.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 22, 2009 12:14 PM

Erason:

God bless Oral Robert,He has taught me to be a GIVER.

...of the gift of bad grammar, apparently.

Rhetorical question of the ages: how is it that someone who's apparently this stupid sees fit to accuse anyone else - Ed or otherwise - of being "in the dark"?

Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | December 23, 2009 6:09 PM