home
RSS
Pat Robertson challenges creationism
Pat Robertson: "There was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible."
November 29th, 2012
04:04 PM ET

Pat Robertson challenges creationism

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”

The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”

“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”

Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.

Ussher’s work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Answer in Genesis, the famed Christian creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, cites Ussher as proof of Earth’s age. They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.”

For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old.

The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Charles Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.

The question about Earth’s age has been in the news recently. Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that provoked the ire of liberal blogs and left the door open to creationism.

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told GQ’s Micheal Hainey. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

– CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Christianity • Creationism • Evolution

soundoff (4,408 Responses)
  1. Bex Drono

    So the old troglodyte said something that actually makes sense. Let's make him a god d*mn saint.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • rahul

      not until he confirms that the earth, in fact, is round and orbits the sun.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  2. Chad

    For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

    and that is the problem, creating this false dichotomy that you either believe the bible, or you believe science. The 47% of Christians that believe the earth is 6-10 thousands years old just simply need to get educated on what the bible says, and what it DOESNT SAY.
    This problem arises when well meaning people extrapolate from the text, and by doing so come to conclusions that arent explicitly supported in the biblical text.

    the way that that should read in the article, is: For Christians who attempt to date the earth by adding up all the "begats"...

    it has nothing to do with "we either take the bible literally, or throw it away". That is utter nonsense.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      the issue comes down to critical thinking. While you and I may disagree in some important areas, you are perfectly willing to apply critical thought to the question of the age of the earth and the formation of life.

      Many Christians are not willing to apply critical thought to this question and blindly accept extrapolations (to use your terminology) handed down for centuries from pulpits. This is the problem.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Nissim Levy

      I'm not an actor but I play one on TV.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Many Christians are not willing to apply critical thought to this question and blindly accept extrapolations (to use your terminology) handed down for centuries from pulpits. This is the problem."

      =>well...
      There are different ways to knowing the truth of the existence of the God of Israel and His Son Jesus, Historical/scientific as well as a metaphysical experience. Neither approach is superior to the other.

      Many people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ purely by experience with the living God. Christian theology clearly states that God lives within believers by the Holy Spirit, and this is a reality that Christians experience.

      Now, many Christians come to this saving knowledge, then start reading the bible in depth, and get scared, "what if the bible isnt inerrant?", "what if what the bible says isnt true?".
      now, these are irrational fears, but nevertheless, many people hold them.

      So, what happens is, people get locked on to a certain interpretation of scripture, because they feel it is the only one that they can reconcile with their reading of the bible, and their certain knowledge that Jesus Christ is real.

      They are very reluctant to dig in and get the real truth, because they are afraid that they will loose their faith. Again, it's an irrational fear, but many experience it nonetheless (atheists do a similar thing where they are terrified of digging into the bible and reading it.. in that case, the fear of loosing that faith is justified)

      so, in conclusion:
      A. The more a Christian does a critical analysis of the historicity of Christianity and it's foundations, the more their faith would grow, because Christianity is a reality and it can withstand any level of critical scrutiny.
      B. The fact that many people hold to (in my opinion) biblical interpretations that place them at odds with cosmology(age of the universe) and earth sciences(age of the earth, common ancestry), is unfortunate,
      but
      not nearly as unfortunate as atheists that cling to disbelief in the face of cosmology(origin of the universe) and earth sciences (origin of life on earth, rise in complexity of organisms) and history (the person of Jesus Christ)

      November 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • leonid7

      Chad, what history of Jesus are you referring to? The one reference (oft disputed) by Josephus? I'm an atheist, but I have studied theology and read the bible many times. To be honest, learning the history of the bible is one of the reasons I became an atheist. I'm not sure you can refer to something as "inerrant" when not a single original copy of any book exists, nor were the books of the bible in their current collection until 300 years after Jesus, nor was a single word about Jesus written in his lifetime by anyone that knew him.

      November 29, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • leonid7

      And we know the bible says things that aren't true, because there is no record, nor would it be possible for the entire earth to be covered by water 6000 years ago.

      November 29, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      other than your parting shot. I agree with you. I never understand why you appear to want to pick pointless arguments with people.

      You accept the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 13.8 billion years old as do I.

      You believe in the resurrection and therefore in God. You believe God was causal to the big bang and the origin of life. OK that's fine. I really have no objections to you or any other person holding these beliefs. To your own lights these beliefs are logical and I respect that.

      I happen to disagree, but your thesis does not reek of the delusion that young earth creationists cling to. It was nice to see Pat Robertson turn away from his past denial of reality. I see it as a positive.

      November 29, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @leonid7

      Chad is not a young earth creationist.

      November 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Chad

      As a theistic evolutionist I believe that God created the world 13.xx billion years ago, and fine tuned it to accomplish the formation of galaxies/suns/planets etc, the formation of life on earth, and the rise in complexity of organisms to the current state that we have today.

      ============
      @leonid7 "what history of Jesus are you referring to? .."
      @Chad "good example of an irrational atheist belief....

      ============
      @GOPer, so why dont you decry the ignorant and irrational atheist for not applying critical thought to this question and blindly accepting extrapolations in the same manner that you decry Christians???

      I dont decry Christians for a reason: no matter what I think of their particular position, their faith is correct.
      now
      You on the other hand cant say that. As an atheist you claim that you dont NEED faith, naturalistic rationalism is the entire game. So, in your view, the non-critical thinking atheist is just as much an affront to you as the Christian.

      right?

      November 29, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      yes there are non-critical thinking atheists and Christians alike. Accepting anything per-rote is problematic. Though without a shred of docvmented evidence I will maintain that there a much higher percentage of Christians do not embrace critical thinking than atheists.

      Rejecting your argument of 'God = causality' for the universe, or the improbabilities of abiogenesis do not represent a lack of critical thought.

      November 29, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Of course the argument comes down to 'faith'. This is a badly overloaded word here.

      The OED (which has a really excellent definition) defines 'faith' as:

      faith, n.

      I. Belief, trust, confidence.
      1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

      So let's use the term 'trusted source' instead of faith.

      Your particular hobby horse is origins. Here you conflate atheism with belief in science. While this is very inexact, it not entirely inappropriate since most atheists consider science as a 'trusted source' on the subject of origins.

      Why? For the same reasons you trust it in most things, save causality of the universe and the formation of DNA. The scientific method is reasoned. Critical thought is applied in science.

      A great number of the 46% of Americans who are young earth creationists consider their pastor as the 'trusted source'. No critical thinking is employed on their part.

      November 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Bill Shizzle

      RE: Chad "...there are different ways to knowing the truth of the existence of the God of Israel and His Son Jesus, Historical/scientific as well as a metaphysical experience. Neither approach is superior to the other..."

      An all-knowing, all-powerful god could, without breaking a nail, communicate with each living person through all time and have a personal conversation. Instead, your dogma tells us that he chose to take the 'indisputable' approach instead: communicating with ancient people who hear voices... you know, schizophrenics. You honestly believe such bullshizzle?

      November 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Rick

      Thank you Chad. It does not have to be either one or the other. Why is this so difficult?

      November 30, 2012 at 8:32 am |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Rejecting your argument of 'God = causality' for the universe, or the improbabilities of abiogenesis do not represent a lack of critical thought."
      @Chad "ah, but typically that is not the atheist response at all is it. I am fine with an atheist response that says something along the lines of:
      "yes, we know there must be an external causal agent, but we dont know if that is the God of Israel.
      Yes, we acknowledge that there is simply no known process by which non-living matter could be naturalistically transformed into living matter.
      Yes we acknowledge that there is simply no known process that explains the stasis and rapid change we see in the fossil record.
      Yes we acknowledge that there is simply no credible explanation for the empty tomb and the origin of the belief on the part of the disciples that they had met with a physically resurrected Jesus"

      The atheist unwillingness to acknowledge the plain facts DOES represent a failure of critical thought.

      ======
      @GOPer "Why? For the same reasons you trust it in most things, save causality of the universe and the formation of DNA. The scientific method is reasoned. Critical thought is applied in science."
      @Chad "critical thought is applied also in theism in general and theistic evolution in particular :-)
      The only reason you think otherwise is your belief that the God of Israel is an ad hoc explanation of the unknown.
      Your failure to apply critical reasoning to the evidence FOR the God of Israel is evidence of that pre-supposition.

      ========
      @GOPer "A great number of the 46% of Americans who are young earth creationists consider their pastor as the 'trusted source'. No critical thinking is employed on their part."
      @chad "nonsense, the VAST majority of those consider the bible the trusted source, not the pastor.

      and again, you completely dodged the question. If the absence of critical thought is your real beef, why are you not equally attacking those atheists (like Jesus deniers for example), that exhibit the exact same lack of "critical thought" that you so decry in theists? The only reason I can think of, is that they share a common faith with you that God is not real.

      November 30, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I agree with you that denying the historicity of Christ flies in the face of what is a preponderance of circvmstantial evidence is a stretch. I think it's a leap to assume that Jesus is an entirely fabricated figure.

      To address your criticism, while I may disagree I make no argument with people who claim that there is no hard evidence for Jesus in the same way that you make no argument regarding elected young-earth fundies who denounce evolution that serve on the House Science committee.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "To address your criticism, while I may disagree I make no argument with people who claim that there is no hard evidence for Jesus in the same way that you make no argument regarding elected young-earth fundies who denounce evolution that serve on the House Science committee."

      @chad "really??

      ok,

      lets look at that.

      The young earth creationist and I share a common belief that the God of Israel is real. I dont really care how they came to that belief (historicity, science, or real personal meta-physical relationship). The only important thing is that we share that belief.

      Now, what belief do you and the irrational atheist share that is more important than the critical scrutiny of the facts that was used to arrive at that belief (remember, that suspension of critical inquiry is what you indict the young earth creationist for).

      ?

      There is ONLY one belief you share, a belief that God does not exist. You have just admitted that it is MORE IMPORTANT that a person deny the existence of God, than it is to have arrived at that conclusion thru critical inquiry.
      Which of course renders your purported position vis atheism completely incoherent.

      November 30, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • humanistJohn420

      Please read "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald

      December 3, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad. How could anyone conclude the existence of god through critical inquiry? Please provide examples.

      December 3, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
  3. Nissim Levy

    wow, I'm impressed. I guess wisdom does come with age. Now, about gay rights and the environment....

    November 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • K from AZ

      Doesn't take much to impress you, does it? I'm reminded of St. Paul in his letter to the Romans; "Professing to be wise, they became fools"!

      November 29, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  4. Scott

    As per usual the religion haters are going bananas over this one even when a well known devout Christian, Pat Robertson in this instances, states that the 6000 year old Earth belief is hogwash. Poor little religion haters can't even give credit where credit is due.

    Scott

    November 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • rahul

      i like that society has gotten to the point that when someone says something that isn't completely crazy, they deserve congratulations.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Rynomite

      *golf clap*

      Happy now?

      November 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  5. ME II

    Let the games begin

    November 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  6. phearis

    hmmmm, 46% of Americans are complete and total idiots huh? Actually, I'm not surprised.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Realpolitik

      And those 46% all voted for Romney a few weeks ago

      November 29, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • John A

      100% of Americans will die and be accountable by God.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  7. jimmy

    what does it say about the republicans that pat robertson makes way more sense than marco rubio?

    November 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • pattyr

      VERY SCARY

      November 29, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  8. SlayFalseGod

    Wiley Right winger looking for votes for his party

    November 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  9. rahul

    i read this article and thought - when crazy people go senile, do they become sane?

    November 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Nissim Levy

      Ha ha, nice one. Sounds like a line Steven Wright would say... or did he?

      November 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • rahul

      no idea – mr wright was just before my time.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • johngreathouse

      Well done. Very clever statement on your part. And possibly the premise for the next Jim Carrey movie.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • Nissim Levy

      here are some Steven Wright one liners:

      I have an answering machine in my car. It says, I'm home now. But leave a message and I'll call when I'm out.

      I bought some batteries, but they weren't included.

      I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done.

      I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • Marisa

      Best comment ever!

      November 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • PR jr

      no no we don't
      just watch it mister God does not like funny guys

      November 29, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • rahul

      im you-tubing steven wright when i get home, thanks for the reference.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      I like...i put instant coffee in the microwave and almost went back in time.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • Nissim Levy

      I installed a skylight in my apartment... the people who live above me are furious!

      I intend to live forever. So far, so good.

      A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • its a small world

      More Steven Wright: "It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it..."

      November 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
  10. Chiniquy

    The Christian right-wing may be finally waking up. Maybe in time, they will give up that foolish belief that the Lord-Creator of the Heavens and Earth has a son.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • John A

      Not as foolish as to deny God existed and/or had a Son while living on Earth, then after death finding this to be a universal truth that all of mankind will face.

      November 29, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • humanistJohn420

      Please read "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald

      December 3, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
  11. minnie

    He is not challenging creationism, he's challenging a very limited and impossible-to-sustain version of it that insists on taking the Bible's account of creation literally.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  12. ProfEmeritus

    The point is: God created the heavens and the earth. If He did so recently, then He left a history for us to find. The history is there. Creationists could choose to believe that the earth was created "with a history", bones and all. Surely this is not a point of faith in the redeeming love of God.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  13. zufree2b

    “You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.” THE SMARTEST THING THIS DINOSAUR EVER SAID!

    November 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • rahul

      now here's hoping he knows that dinosaurs weren't reptiles

      November 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
  14. Terrence

    He's an idiot.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  15. Scott

    EXCELLENT Pat! I am a devout Christian and realize that the creation story in the Bible is not scientific fact, but it is an allegory as to the steps in creation, NOT an absolute timeline.

    Scott

    November 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
  16. K from AZ

    Let’s see if I’ve got this Atheism/Evolution based ‘scientific’ thing right:
    The belief is that there was once absolutely nothing. And, nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating everything & everywhere. Then, a bunch of the exploded everything magically arranged itself (for no reason whatsoever), into self-replicating bits which then turned itself into dinosaurs.
    And, they mock my beliefs.

    May I respectfully suggest Robertson retire.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • rahul

      you're missing a lot of details there.

      and for the record, i'd take evolution over the idea of an all knowing spaghetti monster in the sky any day.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Nonny Mouse

      We can explain a lot more about 'how' our magic happens than you can explain about yours :-P

      November 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • SlayFalseGod

      Dont strain your self.
      Just go with " the magic man in the sky did it all in 6 days ".

      November 29, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • todd in DC

      Let me guess, you flunked science. Repeatedly.

      Try this on for size.

      About 6 billion years ago, a gravity well formed in a collapse that caused a massive explosion that caused matter to form in this universe.

      Before that explosion: Now pay attention. SCIENTISTS ARE STILL RESEARCHING WHAT HAPPENED.

      That's right. There are a lot of unexplained questions with the universe. And guess what, if scientist discover that, in fact, a magical sky monkey caused the big bang, then they will report it. All they need is evidence supposrted by multiple experiments and independent researchers.

      Faith doesn't cut it. Religion cannot admit ignorance. They answer hypocrisies in nature (and in the bible) with "God's will" or some such. Science answers: "I don't know, but I am going to find out."

      But I agree with you that Patty Robby needs to retire.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • q2long

      I actually think that the "magical" thinking is in the Bible. Some "magical being" "magically created" the Earth and everything on it for no particular reason. At least the scientific community has some tangible evidence as to the age of the earth and its earlier inhabitants. I am not aware of anything similar supporting the Bible's version of events.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Primewonk

      No. You got the whole thing wrong. It just shows how freaking ignorant about science you are.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Owl96

      No, there once was nothing. God created a point of energy and it expanded under God's direction for billions of years until we are where we are now. If God was capable of creating it all in 7 days, why would have been incapable of doing it over billions of years?

      November 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • jregister2176

      The fact that you use the phrases "for no reason" and "magically" infers you do not understand the concept correctly, nor do you understand how the Scientific Method is used.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • denouemen

      You got it right, Absolutely as plausible an explanation as "out of nowhere God appeared and said POOF!

      November 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      magically? nah, thats you guys that claim it was magic.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • jonathanweeston

      I see you found that shared image on Facebook. Grats on the copy/pasting ability you possess. And you obviously haven't even bothered to go to the wikipedia pages for the big bang theory and evolution if you're that moronic to think atheists believe that "everything came from nothing." Seriously, did you learn nothing in school? Read a book.

      November 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Mahebb

      Perfectly stated, K from AZ.

      There is more evidence for a creation designed by a creator than there is for everything coming from nothing through some compltely unknown natural process.

      The blind faith required to maintain a naturalist's cosmology is much greater than I could ever muster. I'll continue placing my faith in the creation account of Scripture (which has proven itself consitently reliable since its first word was written) rather than the arbitrary, fickle, and often whimsical conclusions of myriad capricious "scientists" whose findings are regularly influenced by politics, worldview, and money.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:55 am |
    • cedar rapids

      'The blind faith required to maintain a naturalist's cosmology is much greater than I could ever muster. I'll continue placing my faith in the creation account of Scripture (which has proven itself consitently reliable since its first word was written) rather than the arbitrary, fickle, and often whimsical conclusions of myriad capricious "scientists" whose findings are regularly influenced by politics, worldview, and money.'

      could you be any more deluded and dense if you tried? 'whimsical conclusions'? are you just trolling or what? but hey, you go right ahead believing it was magic.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • James Berry

      Science has no BELIEF it has questions, applies thought and reason to the question. That is why there are more questions now about the beginning than your single faith based answer.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:34 am |
  17. Harlan

    There is hope after all. who would have thunk it. Pat believes in science. {applause}

    November 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • hoser

      not so fast...lets see what he says next week

      November 29, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
  18. FrankinSD

    Wow, Marco. When Pat Robertson has a more sensible answer about creationism than you do, you are in real trouble!

    November 29, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
  19. stan

    Is this part of the new Republican voter outreach program, because it just shows these people have no principles

    November 29, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I think he really believes it. I've seen him a few times lately and he's at the age where he's not really doing intricate politicizing. I think he should get kudos on this and leave it at that.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • George

      Ditto!!! However the meaning of televangelist, was never synonymous to someone having principles. Pure fantasy like the book they peddle.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      If I recall correctly, Pat Robertson also made waves recently when he suggested that decriminalizing small amounts of canabis might be an appropriate solution for the over-incarceration problem we have in this country.

      November 29, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
  20. Saraswati

    Wow – go Pat.

    November 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.