Babble babble, rant and rattle

How Un-Christian!

Our Media has the trend of hailing acts "Un-Australian" this and that, shifting national morals and values under the covet of the Australian way of things. And then, there comes this article from the Sydney Morning Herald exploring the factions of Christianity, with one side calling the other "Un-christian". This incident was also widely broadcasted in various other media such as CNN, USATODAY, The Guardian and the BBC.

Now, the SMH article frolicks through the various thoughts of Conservative Christian broadcaster, Pat Robertson suggesting that the unfortunate stroke experienced recently by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who ordered Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza strip last year, was divine punishment for "dividing God's land."

Mr Robertson was quoted as saying:

"God considers this land to be his," Robertson said Thursday on his TV program "The 700 Club." "You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine."'

Mr Pat Robertson, 2004

This is where I'm iffy about hawking literal interpretations of the Bible as played out by those such as Mr Robertson. I found the article rather comical in its representation of this devout Christian on display.

As we can understand, the Gaza strip division has been one of heightened controversy where beyond the strip, we have two differing accounts of what happened. We have two stories and two which have brought much unrest and lesser peace than anyone can hope and wish for. The SMH has also given a contextual explanation to Sharon's past decision leading up to Robertson's comment:

Last year, Sharon, a longtime hawk and supporter of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, changed tack and withdrew from the Gaza Strip and some settlements in the West Bank - as the best hope for achieving a peace deal with the Palestinians.

The unilateral Israeli pullout was supported by the European Union, the United Nations, and the United States. But it was strongly opposed by many members of Sharon's right-wing Likud party, prompting the Israeli leader to quit and form a new centrist party.

Literal interpretation of the Holy Book has always been a topic of debate amongst Christians themselves and of course "outsiders". It seems the portrayal of Mr Roberston by the SMH is one of amusing wit as they cleverly lace in his linkage with the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, who had planned to achieve peace by giving land to the Palestinians. I could almost envision an almost possessed Mr Robertson, with serious thought given to his fair example, followed promptly by the last 5 words:

"It was a terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless he was dead," he said.

Slightly sadistic, I must add.

However, the article flows on with comments made from the other faction of Christians, what I may call, Progressive Christians. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League which fights anti-Semitism issued a statement saying:

"His remarks are un-Christian and a perversion of religion. Unlike Robertson, we don't see God as cruel and vengeful."

Lovely podium this SMH article has set up here, I think. It seems there is a nice selection of various factions of the Christianity branch, having a go at one another, trying to figure out what exactly is the persona of the Almighty God.

Is he the vindinctive, unforgiving figure who punishes those who don't listen, haven't read or more sadly, those who unluckily have not been blessed with a vivid and photographic memory of the thousands of words scribed in the Bible? A God who randomly or perhaps conveniently, hands out strokes or deviously plans an assassination to those who behave similarly?

Or perhaps we are reading in on the Bible too much, as other Christian leaders have proclaimed. Because really God is meant to be forgiving and not so cruel and hence the Bible is more like a guide and not a capsule of Law, to be carried out word for word, even if the World has changed considerably since it was written.

All in all, I rather like this little bit of information supplied midway through the article:

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said a religious leader "should not be making callous political points while a man is struggling for his life."

"Pat Robertson has a political agenda for the entire world, and he seems to think God is ready to take out any world leader who stands in the way of that agenda," Lynn said in a statement.

Now, what's more interesting about this heated incident was the angle taken by the BBC in their reporting of Mr Robertson's comments. They've looked at it from the response of the White House which refuted Mr Robertson's words as "wholly inappropriate and offensive" and the article saw this as "unusual". It's no surprise that the Democrats and the Jewish groups rejected the statements however when the White House butted in, the BBC had this to say:

Evangelical Christians are an important part of the president's core support and generally the White House avoids attacking them, even when Mr Bush does not agree with what they say.

But Mr Robertson is too big a figure in American politics to be ignored.

Religion and Politics, oh, what a slightly tangy, sometimes explosive and bittersweet stew indeed.

posted by Thao @ 6:22 PM