http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130024
In consideration of Pat Robertson's remarks, please read the following passages from Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Man:"
(lines 61-69)
When the proud steed shall know why man restrains
His fiery course, or drives him o'er the plains;
When the dull ox, why now he breaks the clod,
Is now a victim, and now Egypt's god:
Then shall man's pride and dullness comprehend
His actions', passions', being's, use and end;
Why doing, suff'ring, check'd, impell'd; and why
This hour a slave, the next a deity.
(Lines 141-164)
But errs not nature from this gracious end,
From burning suns when livid deaths descend,
When earthquakes swallow, or when tempests sweep
Towns to one grave, whole nations to the deep?...
If plagues or earthquakes break not Heav'n's design,
Why then a Borgia, or a Catiline?
Who knows but he, whose hand the light'ning forms,
Who heaves old ocean, and who wings the storms;
Pours fierce ambition in a Caesar's mind,
Or turns young Ammon loose to scourge mankind?
From pride, from pride, our very reas'ning springs;
Account for moral as for nat'ral things:
Why charge we heav'n in those, in these acquit?
In both, to reason right is to submit.
In your opinion, does it seem as though Pat Robertson is arguing the same point
as Alexander Pope; that is, are they both in a sense claiming that all disaster and
suffering in the world is not in the hands of man but rather a part of God's plan?
When Robertson claims that the suffering in Haiti can be explained by a "pact with
the devil," what is he implying about the role of man in disasters and preventing
future suffering? What is Alexander Pope saying when he tells us to just "submit?"
You can answer these specific questions or give your general impression. I think
that this is an important topic and I would really like to hear what you think!
I do believe that Pat Robertson is arguing the same point as Alexander Pope. He is claiming that the natural disaster in Haiti is due to the fact they made a pact with the devil in order to gain their freedom and now the people of Haiti are suffering God’s consequences. But at the same time, he is blaming the people from hundreds of years ago for supposedly making a pact with the devil. Although he is placing some blame on the people of Haiti, ultimately I think he is saying that we have no control over disasters and suffering since God predetermines it all and if you disobey God, he will seek revenge. So basically he is promoting the worship of God, which makes him perfect for the 700 Club, but not as an advocate on the causes of natural disasters. Overall I feel like his claim is ridiculous considering there is no way “God” did this because earthquakes are caused by the shifting tectonic plates and if this pact with the devil really did exist, it didn’t affect or kill any of the people who made it because they are all dead by now. Plus the earthquake in Haiti was so devastating since the country is already poverty stricken with poor infrastructures and lacking an adequate government to provide the necessary aid. So why would God strike revenge many years later on a bunch of innocent people who are already less privileged than most of us? Lastly, by saying to submit, Pope is saying that we have no control over the things that happen in our lives so there is no point in trying to stop or prevent them. Pope is right in the sense we can’t prevent natural disasters. But ultimately, we can try to lessen the damage these natural disasters cause by making strong buildings and hospitals under a central organized government. If we sat around and lived in straw huts the natural disasters would kill many more people. We can’t stop things like this from happening but we can definitely try to protect ourselves from the true damage they can cause.
ReplyDeleteI have heard similar stories of the reason for the earthquake in Haiti is because they worship the devil and there is or was a lot of witchcraft going on at one point in their country. In some regards I do believe that some thing’ if not most things are controlled by a higher power [God] but not saying we shouldn’t try to better ourselves and the world. As discussed today in discussion some people said that if our outcome is already determined we shouldn’t strive to try and change things; but in my opinion since none of this is can be truly proven, as in there is not physical evidence that shows we do or do not control our outcome; we should in fact live as if we do. What is the worse that could happen, we find out we don’t. Pope relates to this when he gives examples of how animals do not know why people use them just like people don’t know why God use’s them. I don’t think it is a good or a bad thing to be used by a higher power [God] especially if our outcome is predetermined, because that just means you are ultimately working towards what is wanted of this world any way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Pat Robertson is saying exactly what Pope is saying in an "Essay on Man". Just like when Pope says, “When the proud steed shall know why man restrains
ReplyDeleteHis fiery course, or drives him o'er the plains; When the dull ox, why now he breaks the clod,” he means that just like animals don’t understand what humans are doing to control their lives, humans don’t understand what God is doing to control ours and we will never have control over our own lives. When Robertson says they made a “pact with the devil” he means the same thing. All of this happened to Haiti because at one point they wanted to be happy by being freed from the French, but now they must pay the Devil back in a sense. Everything that happens to them from now on, according to Robertson is decided for them and out of their hands, which is the same view Pope had.
I felt the point of view of Pat Robertson was very interesting in the fact that someone could display those types of comments with such confidence. Robertson was claiming that Haiti's people "made a pact with the devil 200 years ago" meaning that the people of Haiti set themselves up for failure and this horrific earthquake was an effect of this. He believes that when people settle with a higher power for the wrong reasons, disaster will be brought on and in this case many will suffer like in Haiti's earthquake. Robertson cannot fully support his hypothesis of this whole thing. It is his opinion, but he like Alexander Pope both agree that there is a higher power, at least I believe so as well, that ultimately makes decisions of what happens in the world. I do not believe Robertson can say that it was a single event such as this so called "pact" that set Haiti up for this disaster, but I would agree that a higher power that no one can do anything about could be involved. In Pope's, "Essay on Man" he is trying to tell his audience that "God" is the only one that has the complete power to decide people's fate. He claims people should not bother trying to control their own lives because they do not hold the power to do so.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Pat Robertson and Alexander Pope are arguing the same point. In "An Essay on Man," Pope makes it clear throughout his work that many things events that occur in our lives are because that's the way God planned it to be. For example, such events like natural disasters should not be judged as evil because it's all in God's hands. Pope describes this theory further by referencing the relationship between animals and humans much like the relationship between God and man. Humans control animals just like God does to humans. Pat Robertson also believes this theory because he believes that the people of Haiti are now suffering because it was God's plan because of their "pact with the devil." He also believes that their poor economic and social conditions are also to blame because of this "pact." Both Robertson and Pope seem to believe that everything happens for a reason and it’s all God’s plan.
ReplyDeleteThis entire subject makes me pretty uneasy, and I'm not entirely sure why. I suppose the image of an all-vengeful God smiting down the sinners of the world, and condemning entire nations to the awful demise is not one I am familiar with, or associate my faith with. But this is a literary discussion, not really a theological one, so I will try to stay objective.
ReplyDeleteI suppose Robertson and Pope are saying very similiar things; God has the power and uses it to punish those who stray. But even this makes me uncomfortable to say, because I think of Pope as a classic literary figure, and Robertson as an old fanatic who needs a touch more reality and logic in his life. I do not like thinking they are alike, but the similarities are there, and no amount of discomfort will erase them.
There does seem to be some deviation between the two men's theories, however. Pope's belief that pride and human behavior brings God's scorn can be taken to be just as true for all people, from all periods of time, individually. Whereas Robertson believed the entire country of Haiti has sufferred for generations because of an alleged pact with the devil made centuries previously. According to his argument, people in Haiti are still sufferring God's wrath based on the supposed actions of a few who are long since dead. At least Pope's picture of a vengeful God asserts his wrath for sins people actually committed themselves. And I suppose that is a little more reassuring...
Pat Robertson seems to be arguing the fact that men can influence whether they suffer or not. He believes that when you are obedient to God and do not associate with the Devil then you will not incur the wrath of God. He thinks that men have a direct influence on the torments they face throughout their lives and can either bring them on or deter them based on their actions. On the other hand Alexander Pope is questioning if God were all-powerful why would he create suffering on this earth? Where Robertson believes that God is all powerful and the key component in men’s happiness or suffering, Pope is questioning if there really is an omniscient God why would he want to hurt his creation? Pope believes that people need to accept what God brings to them because no one will ever know why God does what he does and the only choice is submission to God’s actions. Both men have varying views on the amount of control men have over God’s actions towards the world. It really comes down to a question of faith and what one would like to believe. If you believe that you are truly connected with God while on this earth, then maybe your actions do determine your fates. However, one could also have little faith and just believe that natural disasters are a normal part of earth’s ecosystems. Overall, the ideas about God’s influence in your life are based on a person’s belief system.
ReplyDelete~Kelsey Sunbury
I do find that Pat Robertson's remarks and belief do argue the same points as Alexander Pope for the most part. Both seem to place God in the authority and reason for all of events good and bad that happen in the world. Pope states, "Who knows but he, whose hand the light'ning forms who heaves old ocean, and who wings the storms". Only God knows of what plans are going to unfold because he is the one who forms the lightning, old ocean, and storms. As for Haiti, because they signed a pact to the devil, Pat Robertson believes that the pact is the reason for resulting events such as the earthquake that occured. And because of this pact, God's plan was for the people to encounter suffering. Robertson however, is implying that man have an impact on their own suffering since the pact that was made was done long time ago, before many generations. Pope doesn't address that man can create their own sufferings by going against God and signing a pact to the Devil to be free from the French in Haiti's case. Pope only states that man have no control over what happens in our lives, only God does. I think, since man don't have answers to every problem, they look up to God and can only make assumptions. Countries that are poor, do however crash harder during natural disasters because of the lack of defense and support of their buildings and may just be that like Robyn stated before. I feel like the more we analyze it, the more we will be confused altogether.
ReplyDelete-Danielle Miano
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Pat Robertson and Alexander Pope address this topic from different angles. Pat Robertson argues, with extreme confidence, that man has a direct impact on his destiny in terms of natural disaster. Robertson claims that by making a pact with the decil, the Haitians had this punishment owed to them by God. Had they not created an alliance with Satan they would not have undergone this catastrophe.
Pope, on the other hand, seems to argue that men have the tendency to try and explain away natural disasters and the world's evils but in actuality have no basis for doing so. He claims that man's pride leads him to believe that he has the authority to discern "heavens design." Pope implies that the only one who does indeed understand the actions of the world is "he, whose hand the light'ning forms."
The last line of this passage seems to parallel the last line of An Essay on Man "whatever is, is right." Pope is saying, either way you reason, you were meant to reason it that way, and thus you are ultimately submitting to a higher power, or God's plan. In my opinion, he seems to argue that men can try to rationalise their world to bring themselves to a god-like status, or out of the Great Chain, but ultimately they do not have the authority to do so, and remain where they are "suppossed to be" deemed by God.
I believe that they're arguing a similar if only a distantly related idea, where God is behind the controls and sets all things in motion, however, there is a fundamental difference between the two statements. Pat Robertson claims we (human beings) have an immediate and sometimes negative effect on God's actions and maintain the abillity to invoke nature's terrible reprocussions upon our grievance. This is a contrast to Pope who appears to be arguing that human beings can not play God or impact the world on the scale of a God, and that all of our rationality and human pride can become misleading and actually hinter or stunt our intellectual understanding of disasters such as the one that recently occured in Haiti
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me as if Alexander Pope and Pat Robinson are getting at the same concept, but they do so in very different manners. Similarities from each argument arise from the same idea of a higher power. This “higher power” or “God” creates and controls things. They argue that we may see a certain fate chosen for us determined by “God” that is unfavorable because of our “bad” actions. This being said, the presentation of this idea is very different in both cases and is constructed for different audiences.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Pope portrays, and in a way questions, an avenging God who may choose to spite you based on the sins that you commit. He shows this as a viewpoint of man, to try to explain why bad things happen to people. By blaming the evils of the world on a higher power, they can pretend like they understand this power that determines their fate. Alexander Pope is a literary figure that seems to be bringing this idea of actions and consequences to life through his writing as something that should be reflected on. In a way Pat Robinson is like the men that Alexander Pope describes as trying to figure out "Who knows but he, whose hand the light'ning forms who heaves old ocean, and who wings the storms".
Pat Robinson’s attempt to explain why the earthquake in Haiti happened is almost humorous. He claims God to be someone who will seek revenge for actions made against him. Other than this theory, he really has no evidential proof that the said “pact” was the cause for the earthquake. In his view the Haitians had this coming to them. But if he were portraying the influence of a spiteful God, why wouldn’t this earthquake have happened years ago when this pact was made? His presentation of a spiteful god is made as figure in the media to push the religious agenda of the 700 Club, not to really explain anything substantial.
I agree that Pat Robertson is arguing the same point as Alexander Pope is in “An Essay on Man”. Robertson states that the Haitians wanted to be freed from rule under the French so they made a pact with the Devil to do so. I disagree with his statement because, even if this “pact” was real, the ancestors of the people of Haiti made it, and the current people living there should not be punished. There are several theories out there about the earthquake in Haiti but, personally, I think it was just a natural disaster. There are people who believe that God, or a higher power, has created this disaster that struck Haiti but we can’t understand why. It is believed that our destiny rests in God’s hands, and I somewhat agree with that. This relates to Pope’s “An Essay on Man” because he says that animals do not understand why humans control their lives and are being worked for our needs. Humans determine the quality of their lives, and God determines a human’s quality of life.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Robertson and Pope both have the same general concept. They are both in agreement that God can see people's sins and will punish them for it. However, Robertson is saying that the people of Haiti in it's entirety are being punished for the sins of a small group of their ancestors, who themselves were not punished, and are long dead. Robertson's version of God punishes innocent people for events that they had nothing nothing to do with. Earthquakes are a random act of nature, not of God. Pope seems to believe that each individual person is responsible for their owns souls and actions, instead of their whole community's. According to Pope, each person will get what they deserve at the end of their life. His idea of God is a lot more fair and rational than Robertson's. Disaster and suffering are a part of everyone's lives, it just works out that some struggle more than others. When Robertson talks about "a pact with the devil", he may be speaking metaphorically about the bad deeds man does. He has a good point, it's just unfortunate that the way he chose to word it made him sound so ridiculous.
ReplyDelete