Great "Christian" advice from Pat "I lost my fucking mind 20 years ago" Robertson to A woman whose husband cheated on her: Stop focusing on the cheating
by Larry Simons
May 16, 2013
There are a few constants in life. Sunlight, rain, the beauty of the stars, the changing of the seasons and of course, Christian fucknut Pat Robertson's severe brain damage. I wish I was under contract to receive just twenty dollars every time this deranged whackjob said something stupid, thoughtless or irresponsible. I would own my own yacht and me and Bill Gates would be buddies.
On yesterday's telecast of The 700 Club, during its Bring It On segment, in which 150-year-old Robertson answers viewers' questions sent by email, they came to a question from a woman named "Ivy" who asked Robertson's advice on how she should handle her husband's infidelity.
"I've been trying to forgive my husband for cheating on me. We have gone to counseling, but I just can't seem to forgive, nor can I trust. How do you let go of the anger? How do you trust again? God says to forgive, but it's been so hard to do. I want to forgive, so we can get on with our lives."
Enter Robertson, who should win the award for worst advice ever given to a woman who's been cheated on. There are so many disturbing elements of his response, I have no idea where to begin.
Robertson's expert Christian advice? Are you ready?
"Alright, here's the secret. Stop talking about the cheating."
Really Pat? Robertson is telling a woman whose sole purpose in writing the email was to get advice on what to do about her husband's cheating. Robertson's brilliant answer for Ivy?: Forget about the very reason you emailed me, which is the very same reason your marriage is in jeopardy and the very reason you have gone to counseling. Just forget about it Ivy.
Is it possible for Robertson to utter anything worse? Of course it is. All it requires Robertson to do is keep moving his lips. Robertson continues:
"He cheated on you. Well, he's a man. OK. So, what you do is begin to focus on why you married him in the first place..."
Did it ever occur to this fossil that the reason this woman married her husband in the first place may have been because he seemed like he would be the kind of man who would NOT cheat on her and be faithful to her? Of course not. You see Pat, the possibility of infidelity is the very reason why "Ivy" did not marry OTHER men. You can't really blame Robertson for being the closest thing to an actual zombie that can be found anywhere on planet Earth. This guy has been studying the Bible for 50+ years. His brain cells are eroding faster than sandstone.
"[focus on] ..what he does good. Does he provide a home for you to live in? Does he provide food for you to eat? Does he provide clothes for you to wear? Is he nice to the children? Do you have a happy family? Does he take the kids to sporting events? Does he go out and watch their little league games? Does he share with you stuff that's going on? Is he handsome? Or is he, ya know, what is it?"
Not only does the entire aforementioned paragraph indicate that Robertson has completely ignored the whole issue of the husband's cheating [and hence the entire reason "Ivy" sent the email], but it is clear that Robertson is still living in the 1950's when women had to be the obedient little perfect wife who had to have dinner ready for her man every single night [to show her husband that she has been thinking of him all day and about his needs when he arrives home], be rested up so she could have enough energy to attend to her husband's every need, be freshened up and looking good when he walked in the door, had to make sure the house was tidy so he wouldn't have to step through a bunch of clutter, always had to be happy to see him and suppress any negative thoughts or bad moods if her day was personally a bad one, had to greet her husband with a warm smile, never get angry if he was late and never complain or tell him about any problems, be ready with a cold drink and a fresh pillow for his chair so he could rest his head, never ask him questions or question his judgement or integrity.
In other words, it's clear that Robertson is telling "Ivy" that her husband is the Master and that she should know her place.
Robertson is telling "Ivy" that, as long as the husband is paying the bills and taking care of the family's basic needs, he can screw any woman he wishes. It is not the woman's place to rock the boat and question her Master.
Robertson is also presupposing that the husband is the prime wage-earner and because of that fact, "Ivy" should be happy that she does not have to go out into the world and work a 9-5 job. She should shut her mouth, be content and thankful that her husband takes care of everything. To Robertson, "Ivy" has no right to complain to "Master".
The questions that blew me away in the aforementioned paragraph were, "Is he nice to the children? Do you have a happy family?" How nice is it for the children if Dad is screwing other women except for Mom? How is the family "happy" if the family unit is in jeopardy of possibly breaking apart?
"Does he share with you stuff that's going on? Is he handsome?" This made my jaw drop. What could possibly be "going on" that holds more importance than him cheating? What does the husbands good looks have to do with "Ivy's" concerns for her marriage? If her husband is nice looking, that's one of the things that is detrimental to the problem. If he was unattractive, he may not be cheating!
And still the fucknut continues:
"Start focusing on those things and essentially fall in love with him all over again. And I recommend you reach out and touch him. Touch his face, touch his face. Hold his hand. Look into his eyes. Talk to him."
That's the point Pat, you shribbled up, mindless twat. How can she fall in love with him again if he is fucking other women? "Touch his face"? What the fuck does that mean? "Hold his hand"? "Look into his eyes"? It is crystal clear what's going on here: Robertson is saying that the husband is the victim! The husband is the one that needs consoled. The husband is the one that needs to be understood. Can Robertson be any fucking nuttier than this? Answer: NO.
And still, there's more:
"But as you're praying 'Oh God, keep me not to hate him for what he did when he was with that stripper in that hotel room ten years ago and I'll never forgive him' kind of thing, please help me."
WTF? Who fucking said it was a stripper ten years ago Pat? Why would she send you an email in May of 2013 if the cheating happened in 2003? Regardless of when the cheating occurred, the point is, Pat, the cheating is still happening!
Robertson: "So, what are you focusing on? You're focusing on the thing that makes you mad. Stop that. Start focusing on the good stuff."
Translation: Ivy, your hubby pays the bills, takes care of you, plays with the children, he's good looking, he provides for you, buys you food and clothes, puts a roof over your head. Every once in awhile he likes to screw another woman. He has this one flaw. He does so much good. So, in order for you to be happy, just overlook it and don't question your Master. You owe him that for all the good he does.
Robertson: "He must have something good, you wouldn't have married him."
Yeah, Pat, one of those good attributes was the fact that he only wanted his wife, and that during the wedding ceremony, he vowed to be faithful to her. Now he has broken that vow, and what's your "expert" "Christian" advice?: "Ivy" should remind herself what good qualities she saw in her husband that made her marry him? Since the husband is the one cheating, shouldn't it be the husband's job to remind himself of "Ivy's" good qualities and for the husband to make amends? Not according to Robertson. After all, the husband is the victim!
Finally, Robertson comes to the entire point of this whole issue. He admits that the husband's cheating is "Ivy's" fault!
"So, think about those things and give him honor instead of trying to worry about it. But recognize, also, like it or not, males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make the home so wonderful, that he doesn't want to wander."
Translation: Thank God you have him. Give him all the respect he deserves. Males make mistakes and it's not their fault. If you would have been a better wife and given him all the things he deserves, he never would have had a reason to go to someone else for it.
Yep, to Robertson it's Ivy's fault, because she was not the good little obedient 1950's servant wife.
So, the Christian message to all women whose husbands cheat on you: Be thankful you have a wonderful man who pays the bills, provides for all your needs and buys you food and clothes. Without him, you'd be nothing. He's your Master and you need to realize that males have a natural tendency to stray and fuck other women. If your husband does this, it has to be YOUR fault, because that is an indication that you are not doing your obedient wifely duties and satisfying your Master.
Fuck you, Pat Robertson.
If you must, watch him actually say this shit (starts at 1:55)
Oddly enough, in 2010, Robertson said almost the complete opposite thing to another woman email-er who asked almost the same question. The woman asks Robertson, "Is it my duty to stay with a man who is continually unfaithful?
Robertson's response to her?:
"I don't think so. Jesus gave an exception for divorce. God's not in favor of divorce, believe me. He's always in favor of rehabilitation and restitution. But if a guy is a serial philanderer, and his wife doesn't want to hang around, I don't think she's bound according to the scriptures. He's broken the vows, he's broken the union by his philandering, so if you feel inclined that you feel led to go, I don't think there's anything to stop you."
Well, except for Robertson's utterly unbelievable contradictory statements. In one case, the wife should obey and honor her Master after he cheats; in the other case, the wife is free to go because the husband cheated multiple times. Why is "Ivy" bound to her husband after he cheats, but the other woman [you addressed in 2010] free to leave?
Odd, I find nowhere in the Bible where it says anything about how often the sinful act must be committed for it to be wrong. Sin is sin. Committing it once is sin, and committing it 100 times is sin. The Bible does not differentiate between the two.
Only crazy Pat Robertson does.
watch Pat the nut say it's only OK for the wife to leave
her hubby if he's cheated multiple times