Thursday, January 14, 2010

Religious crank, Pat Robertson, blames earthquake in Haiti on pact with devil

The Christian God, apparently, does move in a mysterious way His wonders to perform. Yesterday, I heard of one of these mysterious ways from former candidate for the Republican Party’s nominee in the 1988 presidential election, Pat Robertson.

Flipping through stations looking for news about the earthquake in Haiti, I heard a most ridiculous explanation as to why the earthquake struck the impoverished nation, and this from a U.S.-based Christian leader.

“They [people of Haiti] were under the heel of the French...and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.’

“True story. And so the devil said, ‘OK, it's a deal.’ They kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free. Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.”

What a loathsome creature Robertson is!

If you have the stomach for it, you can listen to the nut spew his garbage in the following video.

Robertson’s media and financial resources make him a recognized and influential voice for conservative Christianity in the United States. His message, regardless of how bizarre it may be, is heard and believed by millions throughout that country. If there is a hell, I hope there’s still room there for him.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.


  1. That's Pat Robertson, not Pat Robinson! Pat Robertson has been making outrageously stupid remarks forever, and once ran for Presidential nomination for the Republicans,thus garnering them a billion dollars worth of bad publicity.

    Robertson is one of those alleged Christian Ministers you wish would just go meet his maker and shut the hell up. He does more to give the religion a bad name than Stephen Wright.


  2. Sorry, I'm not seeing your point.

    Don't let anti-Christian bias cloud your hearing.

  3. I'll remember that comment, Pat, the next time either you or one of your loved once dies in a car accident or comes down with a disease.

    What a jerk. He makes all Christians look bad.

  4. Thanks for the correction, DMorris.

  5. Perhaps, Heather, it is you whose hearing is clouded. Is Satan whispering in your ear?

  6. Is P.R. referring to some historical event being taken out of context to get the local people to fight against the rulers?

    Did the Aztec pray to their gods when the spanish invaded?

    Did the aboriginals do the same?

    The Romans when the Gauls, Visigoths sacked Rome?

    The Greeks when the Persians invaded?

    Each culture invokes their belief systems to ask for help, I am not supporting or defending his statement.

    (Just hoping to add some discourse)

  7. How can this man call himself a Christian? He spews hatred and fear and as soon as his ramblings are over he passes the plate!!!!!

  8. And Pat Robertson knows this because he was there?Nothing to see or learn here from this guy.Whats wrong Pat?Yeesh!No need to worry though.Most level headed Christians and other faiths know he is speaking out his (insert body part here).


  9. How does Pat Robinson know about the Devil? Was he there? I listened to his rambling speech. He needs some history lessons.Sounds like what he is refering to is part folk lore, part made up nonsense. Everytime there is an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, tornado, or other natural disaster is it because a pact with the Devil has been made? Come now, used your God given sense!!!!!!!!

  10. I think Pat is onto something here, but I pity the Haitians, I mean who wouldn't sell their soul to the devil to rid themselves of the French. (real conservative)

  11. Hi after listening to Pat robinson he gave the history of the island and the tragic loss and " said, we need to pray for them and we are sending aid to the country of Haiti"
    If you listen to the entire message he had their best interest in mind.
    Yes , Haiti has a long history of vidoo but God is greater than any countries sin including our own beautiful USA and he is a forgiving and loving God...


  12. For suggesting they are cursed by Satan, you would damn him by God.


  13. The venom you have here to call for this man to go to hell is way over the top.

    For pointing out a national systemic problem (voodoo), you would curse a guy to hell?

    Yikes man. And you say he's a Loathsome Creature!

    Pat R. is a leader of one of the top ranked U.S. charitable organization's (in dollar effeciency). He would be helping to direct thousands/millions in aid to Haiti, presumably some hours of his time to assist in the country's recovery and leading other's to do the same.

    While later in the same segment that you watched he was praying for the Haitian people's blessing, you have seen fit to request a curse on the guy.

    So, while Pat R. was suggesting that this was a curse of Satan, here you are cursing like Satan.

    Is that the way you wish to leave it?

  14. "The mixture of gods and goddesses and Catholic saints is an integral part of Haitian life - one common saying is that Haitians are 70% Catholic, 30% Protestant, and 100% voodoo."

    The 2 abnoxious questions that could be asked are:

    1) how is their religion is working out for them now?
    2) how will yours end up working out for you later?

    Does voodoo work? You bet it does. And it ain't none too cuddly.

  15. No, he didn't say God did it. Although unfortunately that is the attribution.

    And many of course will call him on it.

    I don't think Pat was referring merely to this incident.

    Haiti has an uncanny attraction to poverty and disaster. Despite tons of assistance that it has received.

    Personally, when I heard about the current disaster (yet another one) it sure made me wonder what is going on there spiritually.

    Don't you wonder after 800 major catastrophes??

    And finding that they have a nation of people dedicated to voodoo, it don't make me want none to convert, no time, never dude.

  16. I think the whole issue of Satan is a lot of superstitious nonsense. To even mention it so close the Haiti's earthquake is cruel.

    Anyway, why would Haiti's curse be by Satan--the leaders sold their souls to Satan. The more like cause of the "curse" would be God, but of course there is no God, is there? At least not the Judaic-Christian concept of God.

    Here's what Epicurus (341-270 BC) had to say on that subject:

    "If God is willing to prevent evil, but unable, then he is not omnipotent.

    "If he is able but not willing, then he is malicious.

    "If he is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil?

    "If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?"

  17. Your point is well presented Russ. But it is both incomplete and subtly inconsistent.


    A naked statement looks bad without its contextual clothing.

    To hear: "You're mom is dying of cancer," is gonna be a crappy thing to hear put so bluntly. Even though it needs to be said from the start to deal all roots of the symptoms.

    The professional doctor needs to gently break it to his audience in the larger context of sustained adult conversation.

    But look. This is TV. Nudity in public is unfortunately cool these days.

    And I especially doubt that Pat R. wanted to walk around the world with so little.


    If a Christian child says about their heavenly Daddy:
    - He can do everything
    - He's everywhere
    - He never does wrong

    What is that to a skeptic? My Daddy is not his "Daddy" anyway. These are statements of our adoring faith and confidence in Daddy. They are not meant to be Physical Laws of the Universe to box Him up neatly in a nice package devoid of personality or complexity of intellect.

    No, if a skeptic points to the destruction and says it is evidence that "a wonderful, personal, talented Architect does not exist," I would certainly say he's chosen to miss out on a good relationship.

  18. Epicurus' philosophy sounds cleverly simple.

    But it's built on some huge GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS and has some hidden implications.

    Boil it down to the essence, and tell me if it makes sense on a Smaller Scale.

    "If a parent is willing to prevent all harm to a child, and not able, then the parent is not fully capable.

    "If a parent is able but not willing, then he is malicious.

    "If a parent is both willing and able, then why are children harmed?

    "If a parent is neither able nor willing, then why call the person Mommy/Daddy?

    We are left with the same end questioning result.

    Only, a thinking adult realizes that a child needs discipline, pain/suffering to grow, and that, yes, the child will stub his toe and fall. And yes there will be accidents.

    The assumptions here are that God has to do what we think He should in his Power. That His Goodness constrains Him from letting others learn or love freely.

    To want to do everything for a child, and to never have anything bad happen, is a wasted life.

    Epicurus must have been a bitter ol' soul.

  19. Caleb M.,

    Your boiling down of the Epicurus quote does not make "sense on a Smaller Scale," IMHO.

    To start with, Parents cannot be compared to God, an omnipotent being. The analogy breaks down from there.

    I have yet to hear a single argument that defeats the 3,000-year-old logic of Epicurus.

  20. Russ,

    You are correct! On a small model Epicurus model fails.

    And on a grand scale, it fails.

    Substituting weaker elements with weaker abilities, shows the logic of his statement structure to breakdown and become incomplete, as I have (only somewhat) successfully shown.

    It looks like you are not having a problem with the Chrisitan God, but rather an Epicurean god.

    Because the Christian's God describes himself over and over and over again as a Parent. Throughout scripture. For example, in the story of the Prodical Son. He allows people to mess things up.

    If you start with God's revelation of Himself as a parent, allowing his Own Son to suffer and die for a greater cause, now you are getting somewhere.

    Epicurus definition of god requires him to be not only All-Powerful, but All-Manipulative. "God is all-doing / God is in everything." God cannot allow evil for His personal purposes / higher good.

    God is infinitely defensible:

    What if God, wanting to be known for His Goodness, chooses to withhold it? Has He done wrong?

    What if God, wanting to be known for His Power, decides not to display it? Is He less Potent?

    What if God, wanting to be known for His Fullness, creates that which lacks? Is He then imperfect? Has He done imperfectly?

    What if God, wanting to be known for His Design, allows destruction? Is He a bad Designer?

    What if God, wanting to be known for His Sovereignty, gives freedom and control to others? Is He less God-like?

    What if God, wanting to be known for His Kindness, tolerates evildoers? Is He then cruel?

    What if God, wanting to be known for His Personhood, conceals it? Does He not exist?

    What if God, wanting to be loved, allows us to hate? Is he then sadistic?

    Choice is not bad is it? If God were more forceful and disallowed disagreement in His system would we be happier with that?

    Would God then be imperfect, because he has a patient heart towards the "failures" of His creatures?

    These statements also cannot be defeated:

    "If God is not willing to prevent evil, but able, then he is still omnipotent.

    "If he is able but not willing, then he is patient.

    "If he is willing and able, there evil ceases.

    "If he is able, then why refuse to call him God?"