Robertson Transcript - Walking and talking stereotypes.

Here is a portion of the Pat Robertson transcript, which has been produced without a link to a primary source by Sunday Morning Talk. [Sunday Morning Talk e-mailed me to correct my statement and point me to this link, for which I am grateful. By the way, SMT is worth a bookmark since it "is the only site on the internet that actually stores the primary source transcript for This Week and FOX News Sunday, every week." ] This site, which describes Pat Robertson as "increasingly irrelevant", is clearly no fan of Robertson.

Based on an L.A. Times distillation of the interview, I previously described Robertson's statements as examples of prejudice. The transcript, however, shows that Robertson was far more nuanced than the L.A. Times suggested. For example, Robertson says he would not appoint atheists or Muslims in his cabinet. He cites Jefferson for precedent on his position about atheists and the idea that Presidents are "has a right to work with people who share his point of view." As for judges outside of the "without Judeo-Christian values" Robertson does a buck and wing about not appointing committed jihadists and how important it is for judges to share the values of the Declaration of Independence.

Perhaps Robertson has some technically interesting points. After all, John Locke's classic tome on religious freedom specifically argued that Catholics and atheists didn't deserve religious toleration; Catholics because of their allegiance to a foreign power and atheists because they could not swear oaths. Locke was a smart guy who knew what he was talking about. I'd argue that he had a better grasp on the subject than anyone else in the Seventeenth Century.

Really, though, aren't we past all that religious oath stuff? The Consitution specifically forbids "test oaths" and even atheists are now permitted to testify in court, after simply acknowledging their liability for perjury if they lie. Robertson's citation of Jefferson for excluding atheists is simply inane.

As for appointing judges, sure, we want judges who live and breathe the values of the Declaration, but assimilation is a wonderful thing. In fact, there was a time when advanced thinkers, like John Locke, didn't believe that Catholics (or Anabaptists) shared Enlightenment values. Maybe that opinion was not wrong, but generations spent in America mainstreamed those values into those alien cultures. (In fact, according to Justice John Noonan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it was American Cardinals who turned the Roman Catholic church from an opponent of religious toleration into one of the strongest proponents of freedom of conscience by projecting their distinctively American views on the value of religious liberty. (But let's not forget that a Polish guy named Wojtyla also played an important role in this volte-face.)) It takes a great deal of pessimism to think that American values will be less effective when faced with other traditions.

So, is Robertson guilty of prejudice? I think he is. He's playing off definite stereotypes about atheists and Muslims. Notwithstanding the fact that he quickly dances away from a categorical position on the suitability of Muslims (and Hindus) for judicial appointments, the fact that he's raising the stereotype at all is obnoxious.

But what about George Stephanopoulis and This Week? Aren't they doing the same thing?

After all, why is Robertson being asked about his philosophy of judicial appointments? He's not in any danger of being elected president. The position he espouses is uniquely his. In fact, Stephanopoulis sets up Robertson by pointing out that "President Bush at that press conference also said that he believes you're equally American, whether you're Christian, Muslim or Jew." So why are Robertson's views worth parsing on This Week?

Obviously, Stephanopoulis is playing off a different set of stereotypes. Stephanopoulis is playing the "theocracy card" by setting up the "increasingly irrelevant" Pat Robertson with sucker lines so that the audience of This Week, who have no love for Robertson or Robertson's fellow low-church Protestants, can enjoy the brief shudder of excitement as they see the enemy unmasked.

Update: On the subject of playing on stereotypes, I serendipitously ran into Barbara Nicolosi's description of "getting spun" by the Hollywood entertainment media to fit a stereotype:

But in both interviews a funny thing happened. About half way through lots of half-hearted questions about why Christians won't like Revelations and whether Christians will take a contract out on Tom Hanks for starring in The Da Vinci Code, both journalists slipped in the query, "So, who did you vote for in the last election? You're a Bush voter, aren't you?"

I said to the Daily Variety guy, "You aren't trying to narrowly define me so you can dismiss me, are you?" When it happened yesterday with the Times I got a little more annoyed. "Did you ask the Hollywood pagans you are interviewing for this story that question?" Both journalists demurred in extravagant terms. They were just "collecting context" for their pieces. But then, the Times guy came back insistently, "Would you characterize yourself as right or left of center?"

I liked both the journalists, and they liked me. The Variety guy asked me if he and I could have coffee someday soon, just to talk about a whole lot of things. The Times guy said, "This has been a fun interview. You're not a regular Christian, are you?" I said to him, "Why, because you like me, and that doesn't fit with your prejudice about my people?" He said to me, "You don't sound like some other Christians I have interviewed." I couldn't resist coming back with, "That's because we are a diverse people, not chained by politically correct dogma."