Inhofe Interviewed by Robertson
July 27th, 2006 | by Paul Merda |Pharangula’s PZ Meyers called his post “Inanity Squared“, refering to Pat Robertson interviewing Sen. James Inhofe.
Sen. Inhofe:
Look, Pat, I don’t have to tell you about reading the Scriptures, but one of mine that I’ve always enjoyed is Romans 1, 22 and 23. You quit worshipping God and start worshipping the creation — the creeping things, the four-legged beasts, the birds and all that. That’s their god. That’s what they worship.
So Meyers puts up all of the verses of Romans the esteemed Senator quoted and sums it all up like this:
Shorter Romans: Loving nature is really, really gay. And evil. It’s one of the nastier passages in the Bible, easily twisted into an absolute injunction to be anti-science and anti-homosexual—no wonder it’s one of Inhofe’s favorites. You know, I really don’t need to compose arguments against religion: just quoting scripture is damning enough.
Yes PZ, that’s all it takes…
14 Responses to “Inhofe Interviewed by Robertson”
By Jet Netwal on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Man, talk about your “Dumb and Dumber”.
By Dr. Forbush on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
You are on a roll today. Pointing these idiotic statements out to the mainstream moderates is one of the most important things we can do. People need to know how these people really think…
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
No intention to defend either Inohofe or Robertson but I do want to say that Inohofe was not saying that Rom. 1:22-23 was his favorite Bible verses. He said that within a specific context. He’d just been asked “What is the agenda of the radical Left? They talk about – aren’t environmental concerns sort of like a god to them?”
Now, whether you agree with the premise of Robertson’s question or not, there are probably no more apropos verses in the Bible, speaking to worshipping the creation, than Romans 1:22-23. Inohofe went on to say: “If you read Romans 1:25, it says, ‘and they gave up their God and started worshipping the creation.’ That’s what we are looking at now, that’s what’s going on. And we can’t let it happen.”
Okay, one can argue that far left environmentalists do not, as a matter of theology, worship the creation. I don’t know any far-left environmentalists well enough to know whether any of them think of the environment in the way that Inohofe thinks of God. However, it’s not far off to say that some environmentalists do seem to be religious in their fervor regarding the environment. I do not think that this is really what Paul was talking about in Romans so I won’t sign on to Inohofe’s or Robertson’s position on this I’m just saying that there’s a context to his comments that might help understand Inohofe’s point.
By Dr. Forbush on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
It is quite interesting how respecting God’s creation gets distorted by these fanitics into worshiping creation. How many environmentalists have built temples and conduct religious rights worshiping creation without regard for the Creator? Very few, but these people would have you believe that environmentalists are all Druids. An outsider might see the Christmas tree at the center of a family living room and come to the same conclusion about these fundamentalists. But we are never going to get anywhere if we continue to allow these idiots to distort the truth in this way.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Dr. Forbush,
Well, there are Gaia worshippers and, I would guess that people who worship mother earth would tend to be quite strong environmentalists but, as you say, there are very few of those.
From a certain Christian point of view, everyone has a god, whether they think of themselves as theists, agnostics or atheists. The argument goes that a person’s god is that which the person holds as most important in life, the highest authority, that to which he or she devotes the most energy, time and attention to. By that definition, it is not altogether idiotic to see hard-core environmentalists (and Inohofe was talking about hard core environmentalists, including those who use violence and destruction in advancing their environmentalists) as worshipping creatures/creation more than Creation’s God.
Of course, by that definition, Christians are idolators and that really is the point of the definition. I have myself, as a pastor, in my preaching, told my congregation that the television or the computer or work or many other things have taken priority over devotion to God. It is designed to make Christians think about who/what is most important in their life. If it isn’t God, then they are breaking the first commandment. Not that God is the only thing, just that God should be first in the life of a Christian and all else should revolve around that relationship.
What is effective as preaching to the choir (one’s congregation) is not necessarily effective when directed to those whose political policy preferences do not match one’s own. Lutherans are used to being told that they are sinners, feeling guilty about it, and making a commitment to doing better in their lives. Outside of that context, though, it is little more than fodder for ridicule.
By Dr. Forbush on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I do understand that point of view, but don’t you think that these guys are jumping to conclusions. For example, some people are willing to defend the United States to the death, does that make the United States their god? Some people place family above everything except God and they are willing to die for that cause. Because they are willing to fight for their family should we assume that they are ancestor worshipers? These guys are assuming that environmentalists are worshiping creation based on their extreme actions. What if they are defending God’s creation with their life? Should we assume their beliefs without even asking?
It is politics that drives these wild statements and it distorts the truth. These guys are simply following the example of George W Bush, or is it the other way around?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Dr. Forbush,
Pat Robertson is not my favorite Christian and his brand of theology is not mine so I’m not going to defend him. Inhofe, I know next to nothing about so I’m not going to go too far out on any limb to say much about him. I do think that the POV that I was referencing in my previous comment is where they were going with it. Having read the actual interview, I do not think that either did a good job of setting up what, exactly, about extremist environmentalism constitutes idolatry. Of course, they might have been depending upon a shared set of understandings among those who view the 700 Club regularly (I never do so I can’t say).
Having said that, yes, they are jumping to conclusions here. On the other hand, I think anyone that does anything that doesn’t flow from the love of God (both the love that God has for man or the love that one has for God) is idolatry and most of the time, that makes all of us idolaters. But, as I said, that line goes over best among those who are convinced that they are sinners, sinning daily and much, as it were.
By Dr. Forbush on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
My final point on this is that these guys may honestly believe that these environmentalists actually are idolaters. But chances are they also would be able to make that very same point about anyone they chose to vilify. In fact, as you point out you could make the same point about every member of your congregation. But, these guys are doing this in an effort to vilify environmentalists in general. The fact that they may be idolaters is minimized by the fact that we all are. I realize that you aren’t defending them, but it would be nice to recognize that this strategy of vilification is nonproductive in an honest democracy. If we want to live in the best possible society we should not lie to make a point, because the result will be a weaker society built on lies. Democracy works when ideas compete and the best idea wins out. Deception takes away this strength of Democracy.
On top of this, shouldn’t Pat Robertson, a self proclaimed man of God honor the ninth commandment?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Yes, to all of the above with the exception that they aren’t using it to vilify environmentalists generally. The context and question being responded to and Inhofe’s entire answer makes it clear that he is talking about radical environmentalists, not all environmentalists. Also, I would not agree that the fact that we are all idolaters minimizes anything. Idolatry is the first of the Commandments, not only in sequence but in importance. There is nothing minimal about idolatry.
All of that said, this is not within the realm of what I see as the kind of message that Christians ought to be making public without making perfectly clear what I have tried to outline here. Pat and Inhofe didn’t do that. Just one of the reasons that I don’t watch the 700 club.
By Dr. Forbush on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
You wrote: “Yes, to all of the above with the exception that they aren’t using it to vilify environmentalists generally.”
I would say that this is disingenuous. The viewers of this program have been conditioned not to distinguish between radical environmentalists and standard environmentalists. Making the point about radicals enables Mr. Robertson to defend his position with the occasional critic, while still giving his message to the faithful. This technique is repeated in many broadcasts of the 700 club. I pointed it out twice before on comments he made about Iran and Venezuela.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Dr. Forbush,
I never watch the 700 club so I don’t know what tactics they are well known for but I did read the relevant portions of the actual interview between Robertson and Inhofe. Robertson asks about environmentalists but, in his answer, Inhofe is clearly and explicitly referencing the “far left environmentalists” not all environmentalists in general. You may think they they, Robertson and Inhofe, are being disingenuous but I don’t think that I am. I’m just saying what I read.
By Sandy on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
I find it hyesterical that atheists/agnostics try to quote the Bible and have NO IDEA how to interpret it!
By Jet Netwal on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
I find you pretty funny, Sandy. You feel so comfortable passing public judgement upon two men whose background you know nothing. You pass a lot of judgements, Sandy. Perhaps you could stand to do a little reading instead. I imagine either one of these gentlemen could knowledgeably point you to some enlightening passages.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 27, 2006 | Reply
Sandy,
I think I have a pretty fair understanding of how to interpret the Bible. The way I interpret it may be (you can count on it) different from the way you interpret it but if you’ve ever looked around at the Denominational landscape of Christianity, you will find that lots of honest Christians read the same Bible in different ways. One doesn’t have to be a atheist or agnostic to disagree with you about what the Bible means.