Here You Go, Ladies....

[Modler]

At the 41 second mark of the video this senile old jesus freak bastard pulled the rape card right out of his ass. The video is there pal. Why don't you fucking listen to him?

I know what he says - I watched the video several times to make sure I hadn't missed anything.
And what he says is nothing like that all atheist women rejects or hates Jesus because they have been raped, that's simply a misrepresentation of his actual words.

Robertson is talking about one woman who, apparently, gets angry and hostile just by her coworker mentioning the word "God". And that does indeed sound a bit suspicious, and Robertson simply tries to find a possible explanation to it.
I am not saying that Robertson's idea of rape is appealing in any way, even though it could be true, but it is way over the top.

And I do find it unlikely that the viewer is telling the whole story - this is most likely a case of an atheist who has become frustratingly tired of a coworker's constant and insistent attempts at "bringing her to Jesus".

It may well be that Pat Robertson is becoming more or less senile, but I don't find this to be a very convincing example of it.

[Rahul]

My wife used to serve Pat Robertson breakfast at a fancy town club all the time. There were several gay waiters that worked there that would take turns spitting in his food.

[Minimalist]

You people are good at inventing stories.

When confronted with a person who rejects his silly god your pal Pat reacts by suggesting that she must have been raped. The implication is clear.

[rexbeccarox]

I think what Modler is trying to say is that Pat Robertson didn't say, generally, that atheist women reject Jesus because they've been raped, just possibly the atheist woman who was the subject of the call. The article is a bit inaccurate. What he did say was just as heinous, though, IMO, and in context, it's easy to see why someone might think he's generalizing all atheist women, because how on earth did he come up with that conclusion?

[Modler]

You people are good at inventing stories.

When confronted with a person who rejects his silly god your pal Pat reacts by suggesting that she must have been raped. The implication is clear.

Robertson isn't just confronted with a person who rejects his silly God, he is confronted with a person who apparently becomes hostile just by someone merely mentioning the word God. There's quite a difference.

I am not saying that I like Robertson's suggestion about rape - as I said before; it's way over the top. And I find it very disgraceful of him to suggest, that someone's been raped, on the basis of such minimal information.

But to say that Robertson thinks that all atheist women rejects Jesus because they have been raped, that is a severe misinterpretation of what he says in the video.

And I am not saying this because I like Pat Robertson at all - he is a foul and sinister old man.
My point is, that if we want to oppose the extensive amount of quote-mining and misrepresentation of others views and arguments, that comes from a lot of those dishonest preachers of religion, we need to keep ourselves from doing the same thing.

---

What he did say was just as heinous, though, IMO, and in context, it's easy to see why someone might think he's generalizing all atheist women, because how on earth did he come up with that conclusion?

I fear that fathers abusing their daughters may be rather common in the extremist religious societies that Robertson must have frequented throughout his life.
It may well be, that such abuse was the most obvious reason for someone to really hate God, that he could think of in the moment.
But that is off course pure speculation.