Comments

THE WORLD’S WORST INTERVIEWER INTERVIEWSONE OF THE WORLD’S BEST INTERVIEWEES — 18 Comments

  1. I KNEW she was going to ask that follow up, So you say St. Paul was wrong! She didn’t listen and if she did, she didn’t hear what she wanted to hear so, in typical fashion, she made up what was truth for her, Gene Robinson says St. Paul was wrong. Feh. I want to laugh and cry at the same time.

  2. Bishop Robinson clearly has had a lot of practice with this sort of question.

    What I find ironic is that the right sees him as a heretic extremist, while the answer he gives here is quite conservative.

  3. You got the title right for this one, MP!

    What the heck is “CNS.COM”? (I tried googling it but just got a “timed out” return. Yeah, well, that’s probably accurate.)

    Hooray for +Gene!

  4. Oh my. When +Gene was explaining his understanding of the passage, the interviewer was hearing “Peanuts Adult Speech” (“Mwah wah wah wah wah wah wha wha.”)

  5. I’ll second what Lois & Texas Mike said. It really did go right over her head.

    I’ll bet if the camera was trained on her face, you could SEE her eyes glazing over, as people’s eyes are wont to do in the face of a nuanced answer to a question; what they want is black/white, yes/no answers to everything.

    Even my atheist coworker says everyone should see the world in strictly black/white terms, which doesn’t serve him well at all – because if we did see the world that way, then his so-called “marriage” to his wife (who is also a nonbeliever) is not a real marriage at all. No clergy person blessed their union, so I suppose they live in sin.

    Oh, and his wife is unable to have children, so they’ve also fallen down on the other reason to be married: procreation. The two kids they have are from his first marriage.

    Go figure.

    Believe me, he’s one annoying S.O.B.

  6. you could SEE her eyes glazing over

    She was having enough trouble with the longer words in her Biblical quote. You could tell somebody had shoved it in her hand just before the interview and she hadn’t bothered to read it first.

  7. I will bet any money that the question “so are you saying St Paul was wrong” wasn’t even something she thought of – some boss-type higher up the chain will have said, “Here’s this quote, so read him this, and if he comes back with an answer, ask if he’s arguing with the Bible.” She would have put it to him with more conviction if it had been her idea in the first place.

  8. She would have put it to him with more conviction if it had been her idea

    Which would probably have been the first one she had ever had.

  9. well, to be fair, MP, she obviously had the idea at some point that going on TV sounded like a glamorous, fun thing to do and that waving a microphone around looks nice and easy. Unfortunately for her, this idea was crap.

  10. WSJM, I was able to get on http://cnsnews.com just now. It’s a right-wing “news” site started by Brent Bozell and affiliated with his “Media Research Center”.

    I didn’t spend much time there, but it looks something like World Nut Daily.

    “CNSNews.com is an alternative to the liberal media, focusing on stories that are unreported, under-reported, or misreported by the mainstream press.” [koff]

  11.      Well done, Gene!

         Once a person has decided to take the Bible literally, everything can become black and white. What a loss of beauty and understanding in such a way of reading!

  12. Thanks for the website address, Mike. I’ll take a (quick!) look.

    I forgot to mention a thought that crossed my mind in watching this clip: When one hears someone refer to “the Book of Romans” it may be a warning that one may need to wash one’s socks. Yeah, I know, some of our dearest family and friends say that (even some lectors!) but it suggests to me that this person may not really be aware of what the Scriptural documents are (Romans, of course, is a letter, not really a “book”). Many folks seem to regard the Bible as something akin to the Iowa Code — a couple of thick volumes in which you can look up legislation. Except the Bible was enacted by God, not by the Iowa General Assembly.

    Oh well.

  13. I kinda feel sorry for her.

    She just made an absolute fool of herself right on camera and now it’s all over da Internets.

    Oh well. Maybe one of these days she’ll wake up.

    Or not.

  14. Except the Bible was enacted by God, not by the Iowa General Assembly

    Are you quite sure about that, WSJM? … After all it might maybe explain some of the more waffly obscure bits.

  15. @Cathy – If anything is waffly, obscure, and self-contradictory, I can’t easily accept Iowa as the source, but must loyally uphold my own California legislature.

    As to understanding of the Bible, my daughter got a memorable lesson when she went off to college some ten years ago. The place is famously atheistic, but it has a large minority, if not a majority, of students with the respectable churchly upbringing that she did not have(*). There, she took the standard Freshman Humanities course (quite a good one, actually) and encountered some study of the Bible and early Christianity. She quickly found that there were only two students in the conference group of 10-15 who knew anything about the Bible: herself and (surprise follows, wait for it) a lapsed Episcopalian.

    One of her classmates, raised in a famous Christian sect, the name of which you would recognize instantly, was surprised to learn that not all the books of the Bible were written at the same time.

    (*) Let me not exaggerate here: she did have a good acquaintance with John Cleese’s reading of The Screwtape Letters.