Falwell and Robertson: Frauds?

Dru Stevenson, an associate professor at the South Texas School of Law in Houston, has linked to my post on the ACLU defending the rights of Christians. He also left a comment in response to the post that preceeded that one, which was about John Scalzi's attempt to find Christian lawyers who did work for the ACLU. First, I want to thank Mr. Stevenson for the link and for the kind words about the post. But I also want to take issue with one thing he said while linking to it. He writes:

Disclaimer: I don't care for the overheated tone of this site. I also think its personal attacks on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are hackneyed, inappropriate, and immature. Both of those conservative leaders seem basically sincere and well-intentioned, even if I feel they are sometimes misguided (or wish they'd devote their obvious talents to my favorite causes or churches instead - they certainly have been effective at many projects they've undertaken, which I respect).

Now, I know many people, even people who would tend to agree with me, are a bit put off by the sometimes rough and tumble tone of my writing. I'm fine with that. Anyone who gives out an Idiot of the Month Award (now the Robert O'Brien Trophy) certainly has to expect that those who prefer a more muted and collegial approach to such topics will find him a bit harsh. But I don't think it is reasonable to criticize my statements about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell - I call them frauds quite bluntly - as "hackneyed, inappropriate, and immature", for the simple reason that my conclusion is true and entirely defensible. Mr. Stevenson does not even consider whether the accusation that they are frauds is true or not, other than to say that they "seem" as if they are "sincere and well-intentioned". I would argue that the evidence shows quite the contrary and I will lay out some of that evidence here.

In my reply to Mr. Stevenson's comment yesterday, I mentioned one example of Robertson's dishonesty and demagoguery. After his American Center for Law and Justice won the Lamb's Chapel case before the Supreme Court, Robertson went on national TV on his own show, the 700 Club, and declared this a great victory over the ACLU. The problem? The ACLU was on the same side in that case. The ACLU had filed a 15-page brief (and thank you to Mike Litrownik at the ACLU office for faxing me a copy of it) on behalf of Lamb's Chapel in which they argued that denying them access to the school facilities could not survive constitutional scrutiny because it was obviously viewpoint discrimination.

What Mr. Robertson said was a lie. It wasn't a mistake. The chief counsel of the ACLJ, who had argued the case before the Supreme Court, was standing right there next to him and could certainly have pointed out that the ACLU had filed a brief on behalf of their client; he did not. And it was a lie that could only have been told for a particular purpose: to distort the positions of the organization that his group relies upon as a boogey man in their fundraising efforts. Now that would be bad enough if this was just your run of the mill activist; the fact that this particular activist claims to speak both to and for God, and claims that all morality must flow from his own religious faith, it more than deserves the labal of a fraud. And, I would note, a fraud perpetrated upon the millions of followers who rely upon the truth of his word because they view him as a man of God.

One could point to innumerable other reasons why he is a fraud. This is a man who claimed twice to have turned away hurricanes from hitting Virginia Beach, Hurricane Gloria in 1985 (which missed Va. Beach but continued up the coast and slammed into Long Island and the rest of the New England area, causing nearly a billion dollars in damage) and Hurricane Felix in 1995 (which caused 8 deaths after hitting North Carolina and New Jersey). One has to wonder why his magic powers didn't manage to stave off Hurricane Charley in 1986, Bertha and Fran in 1996, Danny in 1997, Bonnie in 1998, or Dennis and Floyd in 1999. They all did major damage to the state of Virginia and resulted in billions of dollars in destruction and untold deaths and injuries. A rational person would conclude that some hurricanes just hit there and some don't, some travel up the coast and damage other places, and some move back out to sea and don't do much at all. Only a megalomaniac like Pat Robertson would attempt to beguile his followers with tales of how he prayed them away.

We certainly could take a look at the myriad of contradictory claims that Robertson has made over the years as well. In 1985 he declared on the 700 Club that only Christians and Jews are qualified to have government positions. His co-host, Ben Kinchlow, even tried to save him from it, saying, "Obviously you're not saying that there are no other people qualified to be in government or whatever if they aren't Christians or Jews." Robertson replied, "Yeah, I'm saying that. I just said it....No one is fit to govern other people unless first of all something governs him. Adn there is only one governor I know of that is suitable to be judge of all the universe, that's God Almighty. Yes, I did say that. You can quote me. I believe it." Now that might be absurd enough, but it doesn't stop there. In September of 1987, Time magazine asked him about his statement. His response: "I never said that in my life. I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that." When someone sent the reporters at Time a copy of the tape, Robertson had to eat his words.

But wait, it gets even better. In his later book, The New World Order, he went back to his original position, saying:

You don't dare say America or Christianity is a better way of living. When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring those atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."

Notice how he was then claiming that he had advocated this position during his presidential campaign, when in point of fact he had denied ever having said such a thing during his presidential campaign? He said it, he didn't say it, then he says he did say it. He really does seem to believe that reality is whatever he declares it to be at any given moment. And what he declares is often something downright looney or frightening. For instance, in speeches before the Christian Coalition he has told his followers that they are, quite literally, locked in a battle against "Satanic forces". "We are not coming up against just human beings to be at them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare. And if we are not aware of what we're fighting, we will lose" is a typical statement from Robertson.

As far as Falwell is concerned, what better example could you have than the one I wrote about a few months ago, where he went on national television, not once but twice, and flat out lied about whether his ministry had ever lost its tax exempt status for any period of time. Even after having it revealed that in a letter written and signed by him some years earlier, he had admitted that they had lost their tax exempt status, he still went on a second show and repeated the same lie again.

And Falwell, like Robertson, continually lies about the ACLU's position on church and state issues. Here's a perfect example. In a column in the Worldnutdaily, he wrote about the case of 7 students in Massachusetts who were punished by their school for handing out candy canes with a religious message attached to them. In that column, he made the following statement:

The fact is, students have the right to free speech in the form of verbal or written expression during non-instructional class time. And yes, students have just as much right to speak on religious topics as they do on secular topics - no matter what the ACLU might propagate. Quite simply, school officials may not censor religious or Christian messages solely because another person might be "offended."

This is simply a lie. The ACLU fully supports the rights of students to speak on religious topics and to hand out religious literature to their classmates. In fact, the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of the very students in the very case Falwell is referring to. Again, as with Robertson, such politically-motivated deceit on part of a man who portrays himself as a model of morality for the world fully deserves to be considered a fraud.

Lastly, what more evidence do you need that these two are frauds than the infamous interview of Falwell on Robertson's TV show after the 9/11 attacks? Look at this unbelievable exchange between the two of them:

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

Now of course, both of them apologized for these remarks after a lot of negative attention, but look at how absurd the apologies were. Here is Falwell's apology:

"I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize."

Huh? He would never blame any human being except the terrorists? He did blame human beings except the terrorists. And he even prefaced it by saying, "I know that I'll hear from them on this", so he had thought about it beforehand, it wasn't just an off the cuff remark. Can anyone seriously doubt that he meant exactly what he said when he said it? I would suggest that no rational person could. Falwell also went on Meet the Press and, when asked about those comments, defended himself by saying that he had also placed blame on "a sleeping church, a lethargic church." But if you read the full transcript of the interview, you can see that this is a lie too and he in fact said no such thing. Here is Robertson's follow up on it, on Fox News:

"I thought it was totally inappropriate at the time, and -- I was watching a monitor. I'm on a monitor there with you, and he was on a monitor with me, and I, frankly, wasn't paying as much -- as close attention, until I read the transcript later on, to what he said, and we both repudiated those remarks."

This might be plausible, except that Robertson agreed with him right after he said it, not once but twice, saying "yes" and "I totally concur" and then extending his remarks even further. Again, no rational person could view such transparent nonsense as genuine apologies.

Not only have both been caught telling lies, they've both been caught telling more lies to cover up those lies. And those lies have an obvious purpose. I would strongly suggest that no one who lies this shamelessly can possibly be called "sincere and well-intentioned", as Mr. Stevenson says. I could easily go on about both men and offer up a hundred more examples that justify calling them frauds. Given the enormous amount of evidence that supports that conclusion, I just don't think it's reasonable to say that calling a spade a spade in this case is "hackneyed, inappropriate and immature." The truth is the truth, and while it may not truly set us free it can at least puncture the hypocrisy of men like Falwell and Robertson.