Nobody's afraid of Pat Robertson anymore.

(That was actually 1987, not 2001.)

As long as he dosen't command to kill people with differing viewpoints or beliefs or rituals, I don't see what the problem is. Why on earth should it fall on somebody to save someone else? Christian or not, Robertson seems to be practical and careful and seems to be advising others to be equally careful. I don't see anything wrong with that. And I definitely don't think men are dogs for rejecting women who have adopted kids and Pat Robertson was definitely right in defending them. Plus I don't see how Christian it is to call men dogs when they do not take up responsibility for problems which they did not create.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about Pat Robertson or Christianity. I have never heard of Pat Robertson and I don't know or care what the ten commandments are or whatever Christianity commands etc etc etc.

"...the men she dated always lost interest in her after finding out that her three daughters were adopted from three different countries and not her biological children that come with child support."

Well, duh! Does a Christian man, or any man, have a duty to marry and support a woman and her children who were fathered by other men? Or any duty to date or court a woman with children that are not his?

"... a female co-host's gut reaction [was] that it was because they are 'dogs' and it is 'just wrong.'"

Selfish dog that I am, I too have little interest in relationships with women looking for a meal ticket for themselves and their children.

The fact is, both men and women who will not take on the burden of supporting and parenting someone else's children, especially high needs children with problems like those Robertson mentioned, way outnumber the men and women who will. Are they (we) all dogs?

Those who think so should become foster and adoptive parents of high needs children, because, believe me, the need for such parents is very great.

Those who think not should not be criticizing Robertson's point of view, poorly articulated though it was, because it applies to them.

As obnoxious and goofy and flawed as Pat Robertson may be, he and his wife and the organizations they've founded have done a lot of good for the poor, the needy, the sick, disaster victims, and orphans all over the world.

"Why on earth should it fall on somebody to save someone else?"

I know you said you didn't know and didn't care to know much about Christianity, but the whole "falling on somebody to save someone else" is *literally* the central point of the religion. God, through his son Jesus, dying to redeem the sins of others is why Christians believe they are going to heaven. Christians are then called to be "Christ-like" and to emulate this behavior by helping the poor, the weak, the sick, etc. As a church leader, Robertson is supposed to encourage his followers to "rise above" what's practical and to care for their fellow man.

Although in today's American climate one could be forgiven for assuming the central point of Christianity is to eat fried chicken sandwiches.

They lose interest for practical reasons. And Robertson, like him or not, addressed those reasons in a pragmatic and practical manner.

Pragmatism, Practicallity, Christianity. One of these 3 does not fit with the others.

But whether Jew, Atheist, Christian, whatever, each of us has to be somewhat pragmatic. If someone feels called or obligated or whatnot to take on multiple foreign adoptions, great. How wonderful a person they are...

But it is necessarily true and she must accept this as reality or forever be frustrated, that her choice here will necessarily limit her pool of potential mates.

And it even eliminates some good men, whether because they want children of their own bloodline or because they don't want children or whether they are just not as charitable and giving as she is, or are in different areas, there are a myriad of reasons which do not make them "bad" or "dogs" or anything else negative.

They don't owe her a relationship, they have scarce resources and lives and dreams and goals of their own, and while they might not even mind her having had 3 children, finding out that the entirety of the fiscal burden of rearing them will come down upon their shoulders should give any man pause unless he has considerable resources.

3 children that come with an existing network of support is one thing, 3 with none, however said, is something to think about.

Robertson's treatment of the subject isn't so much merciless as it is just realistic. Not exactly the kindest response, but hardly an unfair one.

Though as I write that, I am reminded of Genesis:

"Am I my brother's keeper?!"
"If thou art...then thou art the crown of my creation..."

(Cane responding to God's question as to where his brother is, and God's answer.)

You don't have to be devout about anything to appreciate that.

So she's saying any man she chooses should have to be in a relationship with her? Um, no. People can reject you for any reason they want-whether it's the size of your butt or the way you chew or the kids you have. It doesn't make them bad people, it just makes them not the person for you.

She's no different than the obese women who think men should want to be with them anyway. And Pat Robertson may have been tactless, but what he said is true. My SIL works for a foster agency placing kids. Even the ones taken straight from the hospital at birth and given to a "good" family often end up having problems. Problems that not everyone in the world can or wants to deal with. And if a person can't, it's better to know that before you get involved in the kids' lives.

Note the taunting sarcasm of the blog item title: As if Amy had given a teenage life to the study of the application of Christian principle.

Prager (who's nonetheless an intolerably pompous ass) once made a great point about religious belief.

[1.] If you're in the church and your child dies suddenly, you're probably not going to go roaring at the minister to ask why God could be so cruel; you'll have spent years reflecting on the text, and will be already considering the tragedy through the precepts of your faith. You'll know full well there'd been no promise of Earthly fulfillment.

[2.] If you AREN'T in the church and your child dies suddenly, you have no business accosting the minister with your sorrows, to ask Where is your god now?; it's a system of belief in which you've made no investment. You didn't do the reading.

Atheists tend to regard faith as Candyland. If only.

Props to the other commenters for the observations about Christians and adoption.

During a recent broadcast of The 700 Club, a woman sent in a question asking why the men she dated always lost interest in her after finding out that her three daughters were adopted from three different countries and not her biological children that come with child support.

Let's see the math from a guy's side with the scant facts at hand:

She adopted three kids and is a single mother -- why would she do that?
She's insecure and wants love?
She was married and the ex dumped her because she sucked at the marriage?
Why didn't she get pregnant herself?
Why is she out dating when she has three kids to take care of?
How is she supporting them now?
Is she on public assistance?

The other question -- Is she just assuming it is the lack of child support? Did some guy(s) cite it as the cause to dump her?

How old is she? Good looking?

Without some more context and info -- we can't say who or why this is happening. Two quotes to remember:

Beauty is skin deep; ugly goes to the bone -- Unknown

Never stick your dick in crazy. -- jefe

I won't examine the woman's motives for the adoptions. I'll just say that, in general, it's admirable, and leave it at that.

That said, most women do not adopt three children, all from different countries. Their failure to do so does not make them dogs. So a man's not desiring a relationship with the woman in question does not make him a dog either.

Robertson approached this with the tact of a 12-year-old girl trying to get into the mean-girl clique. Amy has said similar things on occasion, but with the compassion of a human being speaking to and about other human beings.

This woman wasn't asking why men weren't interested in a woman with kids. She seems to think the men she was dating would have been OK with 3 kids had she given birth to them, but she didn't understand what made adoption different. Robertson didn't have to be an ass about it.

Pats a douche but he is right

According to Paul, the inquistor formerly known as Saul - I think it was in Corinthians, said that while widows and single mothers should be cared for by they community the fact that they were no longer married bascially means they are dirty fucking whores and it would be a sin for them to remarry or for any man to marry them

I'd wonder what the actual proportion of Robertson's comments was, crazy-vs.-rational... But I won't ask, because one of you will suggest looking it up, and I don't care that much.

The comments about troubled children were horrible... I mean, that's the point of adoption, right?

But most dangerous element of a family like that has got to be the mother. Adopting three kids from different cultures without a father in the home is the work of a disconnected personality who's trying to prove things to people.

I remember when the Woody Allen scandal went down, and Paglia went after Mia Farrow for "warehousing" all those adopted kids. It was counter-maternal behavior, and almost enough to cast sympathetic light on Allen.

"I'd wonder what the actual proportion of Robertson's comments was, crazy-vs.-rational... "

From having listened to him in the past, I'd say that in general, that ratio is no less than 1.5.

>> Adopting three kids from different cultures without a father in the home is the work of a disconnected personality who's trying to prove things to people.

Bingo. It became a fashion about a decade ago when Brad and Angelina started doing it. Collect the whole set!

Like a psychedelic chessboard... Rooks of plastic from one design, bishops of marble from another.

Or your own personal Girl Scout cookie box. An Asian, a Pac islander, a Middle Easterner, an African, and Irish.....

How is it un-Christian to not want to date a woman with three adopted children from different countries? These guys aren't leaving her to starve in the gutter or throwing rocks at her.

They simply chose not to date her anymore. If she's looking for financial support, the place to go is not dates.com but the welfare office.

Did she adopt the children because she's economically able to care for them and a goodhearted person. Or is she a crazy person who adopted children so she could "find love?"

They might have gotten a "chick be crazy" vibe at some point during the date and bailed for any number of reasons. She's just assuming it's the three children because that enhances her victim complex, allows her to blame the men, and doesn't force her to face unpleasant truths about herself and her own choices.

For what is she looking on these dates? A sugar daddy? A romantic companion? And at what point during the date does she begin applying the pressure?

Of course, the smart thing to do would have been to snag the guy first and adopt the children later - guys tend to get wiggy when the girl comes with a pre-made family (father-supported or not).

==============================

And don't get me started on the co-host who instantly took the "men are dogs" exit on that freeway without even slowing down at the "chick might be crazy" exit.

so, I went and watched the source material to see exactly what the original question was...

"I am the mother of 3 adopted girls. I find the men I date are okay when I tell them I have 3 daughters, but when they find out they are adopted, and from 3 different countries, and not my own biological children, they don't want to date anymore. Whether I tell them upfront or after a couple of dates, all the men are reacting the same way. They say that they would be okay with it if the girls were biological children and came with child support. Why are these men reacting this way?" - Susan [emphasis mine]

And both Pat, his cohostess, and the guy who ripped him, failed to ask any important questions. Pat's response was a sledgehammer to a gnat, and he missed the gnat, but the other responses were equally stupid...

Since we only have the LW's point of view, we don't know what actually has gone on in her convo's with dates... but to make an assumption that this is about adoption is utterly foolish.

Are we betting that EVERY guy this woman has dated has said those things? It IS possible, but how likely? The important thing is the child support... From the letter writer, we don't know anything else about her life except that there are 3 children who don't have child support.

Now why would a guy dating a woman jackrabbit after a couple of dates, enough times that she would start complaining about the pattern?

This is where Pat and his commentators lost the thread.

This is NOT about adoption, but it IS about finding someone to pay for her children. I doubt the question would be any different if the children were biologically hers. She just wouldn't be able to frame the men negatively, while she is the noble one.

Conan and Crid and others surely have the part about her motives clear...

So Pat or Cohostess could have asked Q? like:
"So, are you just dating, or are you intending to find a father for your children?"
"If you are looking for a father, at what time do you start discussing it?"
"Do you realize that if you look for a life partner for yourself, and find one, they might BE the type of person who would accept your children too?"
"Do you think you are asking the questions in the right order?"
"Do you understand exactly what your expectations entail, and why you feel justified in expecting them?"

We don't know much about Chica, but so far nobody has tried to get at the nature of her problem, rather they have immediately projected their own agendas on her. It surely won't help.

Amy, you miss the point (or are dissembling?).

The "Christian" thing to do would be to donate money or volunteer for a charity, or even to adopt a child yourself. But Christianity imposes no obligation on a person to agree to marry another person because they are in some way a "charity case."

The real reason for the firestorm is that Robertson actually stood up to the "lady's" casual misandry and shaming tactics:

A man is a "dog" and "wrong" if he fails to sacrifice himself for the benefit of a woman's needs and wants. Yep. That about sums it up.

Sweet.

"I absolutely understand not wanting to date a woman with children, but Mr. Chri$tian shouldn't be suggesting it if he actually is about the Jesus stuff..."

Why? There is nothing in Christianity or the Gospel that obligates Christian men to date or marry women who have other men's children. There is nothing that obligates them to date or marry, period.

The Bible does warn against mistreating or neglecting widows and fatherless children. It says who should support and care for them: primarily their families; if they have no family or other benefactor then the church - church meaning the body of believers, not some state-defined, 501c3, ecclesiastical corporation, though I suppose a corporation could be an instrument for that purpose. The church in the New Testament did organize the support of widows and fatherless children, though there was no divine mandate or command from Jesus to do so.

There are conditions that a widow or mother of fatherless children must meet before the church is obligated to take care of her. For example, she must be at least 60 years old, a believer and living a charitable life herself as far as she is able, and have no family or other benefactor. Women under 60 are expected to be productive; they can work, marry and have more children, manage their homes. They cannot simply choose to stay single, not work, have children and live at the expense of others the way they can in a modern, progressive, secular society.

Many Christians, churches and charitable organizations, like Operation Blessing International founded by Pat Robertson and supported by him and millions of other Christians with money they earned, go well beyond what the Bible mandates. Most Christians consider that good.

Many people attribute to Christianity standards and ideals that are not required by Christianity, and then condemn Christians, who are flawed and imperfect like everyone else, for not living up to them.

I was going to agree with MonicaP completely (at 6:46 am) but then SwissArmyD raised some interesting points - about the child support issue.

Do non-adopted children ALWAYS continue to get child support when the mother remarries, assuming the new husband doesn't adopt his stepchildren?

Even if we can't be sure the adoptive mother's telling the exact truth about what her dates say about her kids, it seems to me that Robertson's crude response is likely to reflect quite a few men's attitudes, or he wouldn't have said it.

What P.R. really can't seem to grasp is that ALL kids come with potentially serious hazards! So why did he - or, presumably, at least SOME of the woman's dates - focus on the kids' being adopted at all?!

From George Burns' "Gracie: A Love Story":

(Gracie's picking out her second child to adopt, in the 1930s)

.....The other babies they showed her were all chubby and healthy, and she knew there was a long list of people waiting to adopt chubby, healthy babies. Ronnie's crib was off by itself in a corner; maybe that's what first attracted Gracie's attention to him. She went over and looked at him. "He was so small," she told me when she finally brought him home, "and he followed me with his eyes when I moved, and I knew I had to take him."

He was premature, a nurse told Gracie, and for several weeks doctors didn't know if he was going to survive.

Since I'm telling the truth, I have to admit that Ronnie was an ugly baby. People say all babies look like Winston Churchill; Ronnie made Winston Churchill look handsome. Ronnie looked like a wrinkled little man with a funny-shaped head. "What do you think, Nattie?"

I thought that if I was smart, I'd keep my mouth shut. "Look, you know I don't mind responsibility," I said, "but, Googie, why'd you pick a sick kid?" "I just fell in love with his eyes. I know he's not well, but we can make him well. It's the same chance we would have taken if we'd had him, isn't it?"

(end)

And that, in turn, reminds me of Judy Blume's 1981 book "Tiger Eyes." In that book, the girl's 40ish aunt (Bitsy) and her husband (Walter) say they "tried everything," for years, to have a kid, and the girl (Davey) wonders why they never adopted a baby, but she doesn't ask.

Blume's main reason for their not adopting, of course, was that the aunt's childlessness helps to drive the plot. However, I finally figured out a likely reason: The middle-aged, control-freak relatives don't really approve of anything from the "outside" or anything unpredictable that they may not be able to control. (As if reproduction were really that different!) It's also noteworthy that while they connect with their colleagues and those who share their interests, they don't really seem to be friends with them - they only seem to connect strongly with their relatives. Even then, they can't allow themselves so much as a sense of humor.

"Even if we can't be sure the adoptive mother's telling the exact truth about what her dates say about her kids, it seems to me that Robertson's crude response is likely to reflect quite a few men's attitudes, or he wouldn't have said it."

Don't put me in the same category as Pat Robertson, thankyouverymuch.

Pat Robertson didn't say anything that wasn't untrue, but he didn't hit on this woman's problem.

Money could be her issue here. I don't think it is. She's obviously supporting three children on her own. Perhaps she is struggling, but there are not many parents of three children that aren't struggling.

This woman decided to adopt three children without a father for them. The father is the last thing on her priorities list. No man wants to be a disposable father. Her potential victims, or fathers, were really saying it'd be different if bad circumstances were to blame for her family situation, but instead she chose it to be like that.

Pat Robertson could have addressed the Christian values that place an importance on a father in the family, but instead he ranted against adoption. He failed.

You know, I grew up going to church twice on Sundays and once on Wednesday, and I've read the Bible through a couple of times. I don't recall any of it telling men who they had an obligation to date. As best anyone knows, Jesus didn't marry anyone, or support anybody's kids, not even his own.

So why is anyone criticizing Pat Robertson for not being "Christian" enough? Since when are non-believers in a position to dictate to Christians what their own damn beliefs are?

If you want to claim that men should willingly sacrifice for someone else and their children, that's your own philosophy, your own imperative.

I'm not sure Miss Alkon, what the issue you have with his answer is.

You said you understand the why of his answer, I presume that you actually agree with it.

If I take your words accurately, your issue is that his answer is not "Christian" enough?

Well my question here would be...what answer SHOULD he give Miss Alkon?

He wasn't suggesting "how" she might find such a man. She wasn't asking for that answer either. She was asking why men didn't date her after learning about her kids.

Did he not answer the question with a degree of accuracy? Seems to me that he answered as accurately as one could absent more details.

It had nothing to do with what people "should" do, or what "Jesus" would choose to do, he answered the question of why men were choosing NOT to do what this woman supposedly wanted them to do, which was to continue dating her.

Faith and religion don't have anything to do with that answer.

By way of example, if someone were to ask me why White Supremacists were torching Temples, and I answered it was because they hate Jews, could one say that "I" am not a very good person because I know a white supremacists motives? I'm just answering a question, not making an endorsement or condemnation of a course of action.

What answer should Pat have given here?

Perhaps, "Because they refuse the duty of doing the lords work, they are not charitable in spirit and...yadda yadda yadda" Would he have been a good christian in your eyes then?

Honestly Miss Alkon I'm not sure what answer you'd have praised on this one. His answer was the plainest and truest one could give. Why does it matter that it comes from a Chri$tian source?

Frankly I wonder how many dates this woman goes on with an individual man before telling him this.

That would certainly matter.

Date 1. nothing
Date 2. nothing.
Date 3. I have 3 kids.
Date 5. talk about kids.
Date 6. Meet kids, notice that one is from India, one is from Africa, 1 is from South America.
Explain, "oh, they're all adopted."

No 7th date...

her: Wait...what happened? Why do men keep doing this?
---------------

Well if it went like that, who the fuck can blame them?

"I absolutely understand not wanting to date a woman with children, but Mr. Chri$tian shouldn't be suggesting it if he actually is about the Jesus stuff and not just the Je$us stuff and the public recognition."

So now an atheist is suggesting what a Chri$tian should preach. In Ms. Atheist's opinion, a Mr. Chri$tian should throw all practicality to the wind and just preach that people commit suicide in the hope that their Chri$tian god will save them no matter what. And in Ms. Atheist's opinion, because someone is preaching Christianity, he should not be practical and expect his followers to be equally impractical. And it is the job of Christians to pamper all the irresponsible idiots of the planet instead of teaching them to take care of themselves by being practical. What the hell is wrong with a Christian making money anyway? At least, he is making it by guiding people in the right manner.