Debunking Robertson Propoganda I'm not sure when I wrote this— I believe it was in 1994, since it refers to an election year in there somewhere. And the booklet itself refers to events that happened in Los Angeles in 1993 but possible strategies in 1996. That leaves 1994 as the election year in question. I suppose I could try to narrow it down but in truth, it's a rather timeless piece in that the same arguments apply today as they did when it was written. I have left most of it as I wrote it originally, but have updated or deleted as necessary to make sense in today's world as well as corrected spelling errors I found. I have also added the actual myth as it appeared in the pamphlet: while I was relatively certain that Mr. Robertson would know what Myth #1 was, I doubt many who read this will know what those myths are. I have typed in the entire text of their rebuttal to that myth as well. While some might say that this is a copyright violation, there is no copyright information in the pamphlet. The pamphlets were, for a period of time, available to view/copy online free of charge and you could order as many copies as you wanted from the CC offices. So I'm presenting this under the fair use provisions to help the reader understand the comments I made. I originally sent this letter directly to Robertson, but the only response I got was a form letter thanking me for my support and asking me to send money. Dear Mr. Robertson: I recently received your pamphlet entitled "10 Myths about Pat Robertson and Religious Conservatives: The Facts You Need to Counter the Radical Left". It is a wonderful piece of propaganda, reminiscent of the Neo-nazi groups and tobacco companies that try to make us believe that the poison they're peddling is healthy and good for mind, body and soul. You suggest that President Clinton's legislative setbacks are the result of Rep. Fazio's "campaign of Christian-bashing and character assassination." You seemed to have overlooked the almost record number of Republican filibusters this Congressional session— filibusters aimed solely at creating the illusion that President Clinton has no leadership ability or is inept at getting legislation passed. When the truth of the matter is that no one could get legislation passed if there is a concerted effort to maintain a filibuster. I find it not very surprising that this has taken place during an election year. If one has nothing better to offer, it's easier to discredit what has been placed on the table than to come up with an alternative. I also find it quite hypocritical for you to condemn this so-called attack on Christian conservatives and on yourself in particular while at the same time degrading and assassinating the character of the duly elected President of the United States. As reprehensible as I find this hypocrisy, I will defend your right to say whatever it is you feel the need to say. Yet I can't help but recall Jesus' words "Judge not lest ye be judged." You seem to have taken this unilateral commandment by the one you call your savior as applicable to all but yourself and the organizations you support. Without further ado, let's start the debunking. Myth #1: "Pat Robertson wishes to subvert the First Amendment by establishing a theocracy in the United States." Their rebuttal (which they termed "The Truth"): "Robertson repeatedly has stated his belief in the separation of church and state and the evil of an established religion. [Author's note: check out the quotes pages where Robertson says that the constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state.] He never has advocated using the government to impose his religious beliefs on anyone. Some assume that if Christians served in government they would act in a dictatorial manner. The exact opposite is true. Christians believe in freedom and individual responsibility. In fact, Baptists like Robertson believe in the personal independence of every believer before God, a belief they call the priesthood of all believers. "Pat Robertson grew up as a Baptist in that tradition of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, free enterprise, separation of powers, and small government intended by the founders of this nation. "Pat's Baptist ancestors in Virginia were the people who persuaded John Madison to introduce Thomas Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom in the Virginia legislature in order for the Virginia Baptists to be free from forced adherence to the Anglican Church. Their efforts secured the separation of an established church from the state, guaranteeing religious liberty for all Virginians and providing the model for the First Amendment. "Pat has affirmed repeatedly over the past 30 years his passionate belief in freedom and his strong belief in the Jeffersonian concept that 'the duty one owes to his or her Creator cannot and should not be coerced by the state.' "The reason that some seek to exclude Christians from our government is not because Christians seek to impose a theocracy, but because they cannot abide socialism. The radical left knows that when conservative people of faith assume their place in our democracy, they will begin to reduce the size and scope of the welfare state— a state which is choking America's freedom and wasting her human and material resources. "Pat Robertson believes strongly in the First Amendment's prohibition against an establishment of religion. He is a recipient of the coveted George Washington Medal of Freedom and is a collateral descendent of Benjamin Harrison, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. But Pat believes just as strongly that the nation's founders never intended the Constitution or the Establishment clause to be used as billy club [choppy wording is as it is written] to silence religious people or exclude religious values from our public discourse." My Rebuttal: It is unfathomable to me how someone who calls himself a Christian can be so close-minded and prejudiced. You say you support the First Amendment separating church and state, yet you exhort all "pro-family Christians" to get out and vote in people who support their point of view, which is based on Christian theology. You claim that the Christians in your organization believe in freedom and individual responsibility, yet on issues such as birth control and abortion, you are making every effort to take that control away from the individual and give it to the government in the form of laws. If you believe in freedom of conscience, why do you attempt to thwart others making use of theirs when choosing to have an abortion? It is only your religious convictions that dictate that life begins at conception. There is no proof that the soul enters the body at conception, nor do all people living in this country believe that. To mandate that point of view is imposing your religious beliefs on those who believe differently. If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one! But don't take that freedom, individual responsibility and right to worship God as I see fit away from me. As to your ancestors, what does that have to do with the debate at hand? Hitler's ancestors weren't white supremacists. They didn't teach that one culture is better than another, something the Christian Coalition is attempting to do with its "America First" program. How much more proof of prejudice does anyone need than that?! American culture is American culture because of the myriad cultures that have graced our shores— including that of the Native Americans whom the white race proceeded to virtually wipe out. You say you support Jefferson's concept of individual duty to one's Creator, but you seem to want to define who that Creator is. It appears you think that freedom of religion is fine as long as it doesn't violate Christian precepts. Matters of religion are individual and have absolutely no place in politics. Myth #2: Pat Robertson and the so-called "religious right" want to "take over the Republican Party" and dominate the government. Their rebuttal: "Pat Robertson has watched for the past 30 years as big government has encroached more and more on the rights of all Americans. He has watched the destructive results of the liberal welfare state's assault on the family, on education, and on innocent human life. He and millions like him have felt hounded and harassed by big government that has become increasingly hostile to the cherished voice of America's pro-family Christians. "Consequently, Robertson has worked to gain for Christians a place at the table in American democracy. He wants Christians, Jews, and other people of faith to be able to register to vote, participate in the political party of their choice and run for office without being maligned for their religious beliefs. He believes that no one should be excluded from participation in the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship— including becoming involved in both political parties— just because they attend church or synagogue. "The truth is that the efforts of millions of conservative Christians may be able to restore confidence in our democratic system of government by reinvigorating the notion of an active citizenry. They certainly pose no threat to our freedoms. [Note: "Ignore that man behind the curtain" just popped into my mind as I typed that.] Nor are they a threat to any political party, particularly if that party does not have a systematic policy for excluding them from public life." My rebuttal: Once again, you say that government has become hostile to the pro-family views of Christians in America. You don't have to be Christian to be pro-family! Yes, the deterioration of the family is a crisis of national proportion, but legislating change is not going to change the way people feel. People need to know there is hope of a better tomorrow. Yet all the while they're being told if they don't subscribe to a certain Christian belief, they're going to end up in hell for all eternity. What kind of hope is that? There are many paths to God and you have found one. If you choose to believe that you are a sinner, then believe it. But don't tell me I'm a sinner because in my religious beliefs, there is no sin. Unless you can change the attitude of the people the government governs, you can legislate until you're blue in the face without changing anything. You say you want people of all faiths to be able to register to vote and participate in the political process, yet you solicit contributions to help you get out the Christian vote. Why not simply have a campaign to "GET-OUT-THE-AMERICAN-VOTE"? Why bring religion into it if you have no intentions of tying the government to religion? Myth #3: Pat Robertson and religious conservatives represent fringe views that are out of touch with "moderate" Republicans and mainstream beliefs. Their rebuttal: "Polls conducted by the media show over and over again that policies favored by Pat Robertson— the pro-family agenda— are supported by the vast majority of the American people. These policies include smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, a balanced budget, ethics in government, term limits, welfare reform, tax relief for families, the teaching of values in schools, voluntary prayer in schools and common sense restrictions on abortion. "This is why the radical left seeks to demonize and marginalized evangelicals, Roman Catholics and their leaders. They know that they cannot win by campaigning on their agenda. Their radical initiatives are the one that are out of the mainstream. Therefore, their only hope in 1994 is to resort to religious bigotry and Christian-bashing. But an educated and informed electorate will reject these misguided appeals to fear, bigotry and go to the polls in record numbers to register their support for limited government and strong families." My rebuttal: In any poll taken by a non-religious polling group, it has been found that while most Americans do not support abortion, most do support the right to choose. Therefore, your view on abortion does represent a minority opinion. And the vehemence with which you push your views inspires the radical fringe elements to do things like claim to be pro-life yet kill someone. The fifth commandment is thou shalt not kill. (Abortion is only killing if there is a soul in the body of the fetus when it is aborted. And that is a religious belief— and not my religious belief.) As to fear and bigotry, when women going to a health clinic have to have bodyguards to protect them from protesters, and when someone is pushing one culture over another as you are doing with "America First", who are you to condemn others for creating fear and bigotry? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Myth #4: Pat Robertson represents the "new extremism" in American politics. In 1956, Pat Robertson was chairman of the Adlai Stevenson for President Campaign on Staten Island. In 1978, he gave the nominating speech for a candidate of the Virginia Democratic party for a seat in the United States Senate. He was a Democrat for most of his life, as were Ronald Reagan, Bill Bennett, Phil Gramm and many others who later joined the Republican Party. "In truth, Pat did not leave the Democratic Party. They left him and the millions more evangelicals and pro-family Roman Catholics when they lurched to the left under George McGovern and his successors. During the 1970s, the Democratic Party abandoned its centrist pro-family base and became a captive of the special interests of the radical left, including the feminists, extreme environmentalists and gay rights activists. "As a result, Pat Robertson and millions of other lifelong Democrats found themselves in a party that no longer represented their mainstream views. Robertson is a Jeffersonian conservative who believes in lower taxes, limited government and traditional values. He became a Republican after becoming involved in supporting the policies of another former Democrat, Ronald Reagan. "Put in their simplest form, the politics of the conservative people of faith amount to nothing more extreme than a return to many of the policies that characterized America under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. Federal spending was under $100 billion. The deficit was small and manageable. Most marriages worked and families stayed together. Neighborhoods were safe. American culture honored and celebrated faith while frowning on violent and sexually explicit messages directed at children. These are not radical notions, but the mainstream views of most Americans." My rebuttal: What is wrong with women wanting equal rights under the law? Or with wanting equal pay for equal work? Or with wanting equal opportunity employment and equal chance for advancement? I find it ironic that although more than half the population of this country is female, a vast majority of the Congress and every president to date has been a white male. As for gay rights, it is your religious convictions that say that homosexuality is a sin. Yet you're trying to use your right to religious freedom to deny that same right to others, much the same way the Neo-nazis try to use their freedom of speech to deny that same freedom to minorities. Homosexuality is natural. It's found in the animal kingdom in over 450 species. It's found in the higher primates as well. And there are some species that, when faced with a predominantly female culture, will spontaneously change sex! This is part of God's creation! Did God make a mistake when he created homosexuality in nature? God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God and God in him. It doesn't say that love has to be heterosexual. Love between adults does not always have to lead to procreation. In fact, procreation is, in most relationships nowadays, actively avoided through birth control. You say you seek a return to the days when Eisenhower and Kennedy governed. You mention the federal deficit. Yet from the time Johnson left office, there has only been one Democratic president before Mr. Clinton, and that was Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian. Yet he was voted out of office after only one term! And in the twelve years this country was under the Reagan/Bush presidencies, the federal deficit more than tripled! You say most marriages worked— yet what you omit is that many women in those marriages were often nothing more than maids and babysitters for their husbands. Spouse abuse and child abuse were not talked about. It was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. If he hit her, it was she who was questioned as to what she had done to provoke his anger. Women had no financial independence and were in most respects second class citizens. Children were considered property of their parents. Abortions killed thousands of women every year because they had to be performed in unsanitary conditions. Families stayed together because there was nowhere for the wife to go if she left her husband. There were no shelters to provide safe havens for abused women. There were no rape crises centers to provide counseling for victims. Blacks and other minorities were denied jobs, educations and housing based solely on their minority status. Neighborhoods may have been safe, but they were also segregated. Gays and lesbians lived in constant fear of being attacked simply because they chose to express their love to someone of the same gender. I'm sorry, I would not want to return to those days for all the money in the world. Myth #5: Pat Robertson and the religious conservatives represent fringes of society. Their rebuttal: "Pat Robertson's father was in the U.S. Congress for 34 years [as a conservative Democrat], last serving as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. "Two of Pat's ancestors served as president of the United States. His family descends from the same British family as Winston Churchill. His direct ancestors were present in the Jamestown Colony in the early 17th century and played a role in the founding of America. In fact, the ancestors of today's evangelicals took the lead in the abolition of slavery, the end of child labor and the promotion of suffrage movements which brought American women their rightful place in America. "In the 19th century Christians played a prominent role in the political life of the nation. Lincoln was a dedicated Christian. James Garfield was a former evangelist. William McKinley told of falling to his knees asking God for guidance on difficult issues that he faced as president. Theodore Roosevelt said that a thorough working knowledge of the Bible was more important than a college education. Woodrow Wilson was the son of Presbyterian minister who frequently testified of his belief in Jesus Christ. For these and other leaders, faith played a vibrant and positive role in their public lives. "The radical left that has taken control of the Democratic Party seeks to deny the historic and cherished role of religion in our politics. While many grassroots Democrats remain steadfast in their faith and its importance in their daily lives, the national Democratic Party now has made anti-Christian bigotry a central theme to distract attention from its policies of high taxes and big government. These socialist views represent a departure from classic American thought. The historically mainstream views of Pat Robertson and the religious conservatives are not. "In 1959, when Pat Robertson began CBN, prayer and Bible study were legal for all schools and abortion and homosexuality were illegal in almost all states. America's families were intact and only a handful of states had no-fault divorce. America's education was highly regarded in the world, the crime rate was low and drug addiction was a minor problem. "It is hard to believe that 35 years later, a person who advocates the general policies that were taken for granted in America in 1959 would now be labeled a member of the 'radical right.'" My rebuttal: Refer to Myth #1 with regards to ancestors. As to the religious affiliations of the presidents, according to the World Book Encyclopedia, Lincoln was so disillusioned by the in-fighting among Christian denominations, he never joined a church or attended services regularly. Your claim he was a dedicated Christian is therefore at odds with historical facts. According to Leo Rosten, editor of Religions of America, Lincoln was considered a Liberal. Mr. Rosten goes on: "Deists are people who believe in a Supreme Being or Creator but reject the idea of divine revelation, sacred scriptures, or miracles. They believe in a Deity who established an orderly universe but does not interfere in the working of nature's laws....A number of the founding fathers, including Washington, Jefferson, and Paine, held deistic beliefs.... George Washington('s)...beliefs came from ancient Stoic philosophy, a forerunner of deism, and not from Christianity....Thomas Jefferson helped separate church from state, both in Virginia and with respect to the newly established federal government. He never joined a church. The same was true of Abraham Lincoln, who was an atheist through much of his adult life but came to a simple belief in a Supreme Being during his final years." (Religions of America, Leo Rosten (editor), 259-260.) These are the people from whom you claim to be descended. Yet you've obviously not inherited their religious tolerance. I agree with Mr. Roosevelt's comments: if you have a thorough working knowledge of the Bible you cannot be misled by fear-mongers who use the Bible to promote their own private agendas. You claim that the views of the Democratic party represent a departure from classic American thought. So did the Emancipation Proclamation. So did the Civil Rights movement. Change is not always evil and does not always wreak havoc— sometimes refusing to change is what causes the most damage. In vehicular accidents involving drunk drivers, the reason the drunk driver often escapes injury is due to his inebriation. His slow reaction time didn't allow him to try to stop his body from being thrown around, so he avoids the broken bones that are often the result of bracing for impact. As stated in Myth #4, returning to the old days is not something I'd wish to do. Myth #6: Pat Robertson does not care for the poor. Their rebuttal: "In 1978, Pat Robertson founded Operation Blessing International Relief and Development to help the poor and needy with food, clothing, medicine, shelter, education and hope. "Since that time, Operation Blessing has distributed $420 million dollars in relief assistance to the poor, assisting some 99 million people, has trained 300,000 inner city residents to read, is currently bringing one million pounds of produce each month into the inner cities and will provide back-to-school clothing to 100,000 needy children in 1994. [Author note: Remember this was written in 1994— these numbers are undoubtedly much higher now.] Just this summer alone, Operation Blessing conducted a 17-city nationwide convoy to distribute 2.2 million meals. [Author note: That works out to just under 1500 meals a day for a three month period in each of those 17 cities. Or just under 25,000 meals a day in one city.] Operation Blessing has sent medical teams and relief supplies to the Rwandan village camps in Goma, Zaire, and has been providing anti-cholera medicine to keep starving refugees alive. It was also on the scene providing crucial help to victims after Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Andrew, the California earthquakes, the Midwest flood and many other national disasters in the United States and abroad. "Pat is doing what many other Christians have down throughout history— caring for society's vulnerable and needy while providing opportunities for them to advance themselves through hard work and individual self-initiative." My rebuttal: How many cars and what types do you own? How many houses? How big are they? Do you travel first class? Or in a private jet? Do you have chauffeurs? Bodyguards? Maids? Housekeepers? Cooks? When a man asked Jesus what he had to do to enter heaven, Jesus exhorted the man to follow the commandments. When the man replied he already did this, Jesus exhorted him to sell all he had and follow him. This was too much for the man to do and he walked away. Evangelical preachers who live in multimillion dollar homes while begging their viewers to send money are being paragons of hypocrisy. Oral Roberts has effectively said that God values a human life at eight million dollars with his statement that if he didn't raise the money, God would call him home. And people believed him! If you cater to people's fears, promising ways to avoid them, many people will do what you ask. People are afraid of dying and Mr. Roberts told them, in essence, if you send enough money to some preacher somewhere, God won't call you home. You and your organization are appealing to people's fear of crime and financial worries, and as a result, they're doing what you ask them to do. Unfortunately, they don't understand the full implication of what they're doing. As for touting how much you've donated to various charitable organizations, the parable of the woman giving her alms to the church springs to mind. Let not the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Isn't that— or a similar phrase— part of the Bible? And Christians are not the only ones who have been charitable throughout history. In fact, Christians have been some of the least charitable if you look back over history to the plight of the Native Americans and the slaves. Oh, and have you ever sufficiently explained why two Operation Blessing planes spent six months in Zaire and flew more than 40 missions— but only two of them were for humanitarian reasons and the rest were for your diamond mining operation? [Additional sources here and here.] Myth #7: Pat Robertson is an anti-Semite. Their rebuttal: "For the past 35 years, the Jewish people have never had a stronger friend than Pat Robertson. His support of Israel has been acclaimed all over the world. "Pat is the only Gentile ever asked to serve on the Board of Trustees of Haifa University. In January of 1994, he was given the "Defender of Israel" award. He previously had received national recognition for his work in fostering Jewish-Christian relations from the National Conference of Christians and Jews. "Since 1982, his organization has operated Channel 12, Middle East Television, on the northern border of Israel which now has been ruled a "must carry" on cable systems through out Israel. Pat Robertson has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars for such causes as the United Jewish Appeal, Operation Exodus, medical assistance in Israel and the support of an exhibition in Jerusalem for young Israeli artists." My rebuttal: Supporting Israel in my opinion is not something to be proud of. The Israeli government is treating the Palestinian people no differently than the Germans treated the Jews. They've confiscated their homes, their businesses, their livelihood, they've restricted their access to education, the political process and legal justice. What other nation in the world can unilaterally decide to bomb the territory of another sovereign nation and not suffer drastic consequences in terms of world opinion? Yet Israel almost routinely bombs northern Lebanon on suspicion! The Israeli government deserves no support from a democratic nation. As for "directing" hundreds of thousands of dollars, from someone who is worth hundreds of millions of— possibly even a billion— dollars, that's pocket change. Even donating the equivalent of one million dollars each year, to someone who is worth one billion, is like a man who makes $25,000 a year donating $25. Not all that impressive when you look at hard numbers. Myth #8: Pat Robertson is a racist and is anti-women. Their rebuttal: "In 1959, after integrating an all-white church in Westchester County, New York, Pat Robertson lived for a time with his wife and three children in an inter-racial community at a Presbyterian church in Bedford-Stuyvesant, an African-American neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. "In the early 1960s, Pat Robertson was an outspoken advocate of equal rights and took a strong stand for racial integration at the Baptist church where he worked in Norfolk, Virginia, during the height of the massive resistance. In 1968, he hired a mixed-race couple to work at his television station in Portsmouth, Virginia, a remarkable statement of his belief in the equality of all, regardless of race. At one time he had on his staff the highest ranking black executive in the television industry in Virginia. Pat has also founded or spearheaded charitable programs providing food, clothing, and educational services to the inner cities, the Mississippi Delta and other areas with high concentrations of economically disenfranchised minorities. Since 1974, the co-host of Pat's national television program, The 700 Club, has been a much beloved African-American, Ben Kinchlow. "Dr. Robertson is a strong advocate of the rights of women and supports equal pay for equal work for women performing the same tasks as men. He has spoken out against the "glass ceiling" and has actively hired and promoted women in his various companies. "Pat's wife Dede holds a master's degree in nursing and has served as assistant professor of nursing at Tidewater Community College. She was appointed by Secretary of State George Schultz as the principal United States delegate to the women's organization of the Organization of America States, where she served for eight years. Dede's distinguished career is living proof of Pat's commitment to the advancement of all women." My rebuttal: Reminds me of the statement "Some of my best friends are black..." As to supporting the advancement of women, why then are you against the feminist movement? And I've noticed your wife holds a degree in what is traditionally a woman's role. Perhaps she truly enjoys nursing, but even as late as the early sixties, the only real opportunities for most women lay in nursing, teaching, secretarial work and factory work. And how, pray tell, does HER career "prove" that you are committed to the advancement of all women? SHE did the work and SHE made the impact. Or maybe it's because you "let her" do that? This could prove YOUR commitment to equal rights if you felt you had the right to make her stay home but chose not to exercise it. Which in itself would prove just how much you do NOT believe that men and women are equal. Or maybe it's because you supported her choice to have a career outside the home? Myth #9: Pat Robertson leads a movement of poor and uneducated people. "Pat Robertson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Washington & Lee University [AUthor's note: a males only school when Robertson went there, remember], studied at the University of London, holds a Juris Doctorate degree from Yale Law School, and a Masters of Sacred Theology from New York Theological Seminary. He also has received an honorary doctor of divinity degree in recognition of his various achievements. "He is founder and Chancellor of Regent University, a fully-accredited graduate university with more than 1,400 graduate students from 200 colleges and universities studying for masters and doctoral degrees in communications, law, education, public policy, theology and business. "Robertson is not alone. Surveys find that religious folk are among the most educated in society. A poll by the Marketing Research Institute in 1993 found that 66 percent of those who attend church frequently either have attended or graduated from college. Fourteen percent have graduate or advanced degrees, compared to only 11 percent of the general population. Their median household income is $40,000 per year, compared to $29,000 for the nation as a whole. Clearly, Robertson and the nation he embodies are like most of our neighbors: well-educated, hard-working, middle-class families." My rebuttal: Simply because one attends church regularly doesn't mean one is religious. I attended weekly for more than fifteen years because I was afraid not to. Unfortunately, even the well-educated can fall prey to fears when discussing the future possibilities for one's soul. As for the median income, you seem to be suggesting that one has to make above forty thousand dollars a year to qualify to be religious. Or that those who make less have an inferior religion. Your statement "Clearly, Robertson and the nation he embodies are like most of our neighbors: well-educated, hard-working, middle-class families" smacks of racism (most of those below the poverty line are minorities) and elitism. And what about those who are not in those categories? Do you not represent them? And if not, why not? What are they to do under this new government you want to create by electing like-minded Christians to everything from the school board to the presidency? And I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, having a net worth of more than $200 million doesn't qualify you for being "middle-class". Myth #10: Pat Robertson is a narrow-minded xenophobe nationalist. [Author's Note: they forgot homophobe.] Their rebuttal: "Pat Robertson has visited some 60 nations, and has personally spearheaded relief efforts, broadcasting and farming in many of them. "Pat Robertson has had television programs produced in Japan, mainland China, Russia, Central and Latin America, Israel, Africa, India, Taiwan, the Philippines and the Ukraine. "One of his companies owns a cable network and a television studio in the United Kingdom. Another is building a cable system in Vietnam. In total his companies broadcast in 30 different languages, and conduct broadcasting, humanitarian relief and/or business in 70 nations worldwide. "Students from 46 nations have attended Regent University, which was founded by Pat Robertson. "Don't let those who seek to exclude people of faith from the political process speak for you. Be an informed citizen, let your elected representatives know where you stand, and resist bigotry whenever it raises its ugly head. And remember to go to the polls this November to make your voice heard, and urge your friends and family to vote as well." [AUthor's Note: What this last paragraph has to do with the myth is beyond me.] My rebuttal: The final paragraph is completely contradictory! You urge people to resist bigotry, yet in other myths you've stated your prejudices and voiced your own bigotries! But perhaps, in the end, that's the best advice of all if only people will see through all the slick public relations moves and do what you exhort them to do— resist bigotry and vote. I fear for the future of this country if more people like yourself get in power. I pray to the Divine Creator that people will see the light before it's too late. Hate comes in many forms, the most devious of which is a claim to be looking out for the good of one's soul. There's only one person who can save my soul and that is me. Even under your belief system, I am the one who has to choose whether or not to accept Jesus as my savior, so the salvation of my soul is in my hands. To attempt to wrest that control away from others is to assume the role of God in another's life. No one has that right over another, although many do just that anyway. But if we follow the agenda you seek to install, it will not be a matter of personal choice but it will become the law. The Bible also says something about removing the plank from your eyes before trying to remove the splinter from another's. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe about God, but I am demanding you allow me the freedom to worship God in the manner I see most fitting, even if it is direct opposition to yours. To deny me that right would be using your freedom of religion to deny me mine. And that I will not let happen. All text ©2004-13 Shelly Strauss except where quotes with references are provided. All graphics ©2004-13 Rainbow's End Press Do not copy without written permission. Please tell your friends about this site and feel free to link to us.