Pat Robertson:No Muslim judges

World Net Daily ^ | May 3, 2005 | World Net Daily

[26lemoncharlie]

Islamic leaders demand apology for 'hate-filled remarks'

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Evangelist Pat Robertson is in trouble with U.S. Islamic organizations for saying Muslims should not serve in the president's Cabinet or as judges.

Pat Robertson

In an appearance on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Sunday, Robertson, who ran for president in 1988, said if were elected he would not appoint Muslims to his Cabinet and that he was not in favor of Muslims serving as judges.

"They have said in the Quran there's a war against all the infidels," Robertson said. "Do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn't."

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations yesterday called on "mainstream political and religious leaders" to repudiate the "hate-filled remarks."

"This type of hate-filled rhetoric deserves repudiation from all who respect America's long-standing tradition of pluralism," said Rabiah Ahmed, CAIR's communication coordinator.

Ahmed said many Muslims already serve with distinction in many levels of government, including judgeships at the state and local level.

Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's national legal director, said Robertson "has taken his far-right-wing rhetoric to absurd levels."

"He is trying to perpetuate this notion that Islam is a monolithic entity inherently at odds with modernity and democracy," Iftikhar said. "That is absolutely false. ... American Muslims have long been contributing members of American society.

Iftikhar added: "And I guarantee to Mr. Robertson that Muslims will one day become part of the federal bench -- whether or not he likes it."

Muslims were particularly outraged by a 2002 appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program in which Robertson said about Islam's prophet, Muhammad: "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam. ... I mean, this man (Muhammad) was a killer. And to think that this is a peaceful religion is fraudulent."

Robertson also called Islam "a monumental scam" and claimed the Quran "is strictly a theft of Jewish theology."

[Tailgunner Joe]

My source is the link I posted in #312. Madison referred to the argument approvingly. Madison wrote:

"...experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation..." "Because, it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion, has produced amongst its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinions."

That's a religious motivation, not a secular one.

[fairlady]

I read all Roberson said about it just to find out for myself, but if you have a link, I will read his explanation of what he said, if there is more.

He said the terrorists themselves are the ones who are directly responsible for the terrorist action itself.

His reference to it being America's fault was in this context "the approval and promotion of even the worst of sin causes God's judgement. It removes God's protection from our land and makes us vulnerable to catastrophes of all sorts."

I didn't read the part about Calvin or Geneva, but if he said that, I would like to read it. I am not an expert on Roberson, but this particular episode did peak my interest.

[piasa]

http://www.freemuslims.com

[usa1776]

In a free society, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. As the Supreme Court has put it, "a person's right to swing his fist ends where another person's nose begins."

Any person is free to agree with or disagree with Pat Robertson's statements. However, there is an enormous difference between disagreement and demanding a retraction or apology. Disagreement is consistent with a free society. Demanding a retraction or apology is an attempt to replace freedom with group think.

The Muslims have every right to debate the merits of his statements, they have no right to demand an apology for his opinions.

As Ben Franklin said, when you allow a man freedom, you accept what is good and what is bad about him (paraphrase).
Freedom does not allow the option of demanding only the good.

Dictators and tyrants don't seek popular support to place themselves in power by stating they want to suppress freedom (Hitler was elected originally).Instead, they create support through the lie that they can obtain only what is good in men and change the bad. Circumstances will dictate what is good and what is bad and who is good and who is bad, but the flawed thinking is the same.

Any society that believes you can, or should even try, to change what is wrong in your view about another man-- regardless of the merits-- is on the road to tyranny.

[usa1776]

Before we can talk about the crusades we need to establish that all parties involved understand the differences between Catholicism and Christianity.

[26lemoncharlie]

Time for a re-evaluation of your priorities. Canada is starting down the road of Sharia Law. There have been quite a few posts about it here at FR. Type Sahria Law into the search engine!

[26lemoncharlie]

(from New International Version)
You should be wary of these "New International Versions".

[usa1776]

Your statement is entirely wrong, unless you define Catholicism as Christianity (I'll have to grant you that).

Christianity is not Catholicism. In the most basic terms the difference is that Christians believe God's word is absolute, and Catholics believe that tradition is on equal ground with God's word (that is that God's word is not absolute and can be changed by man).

Please do not use "Christianity" when you mean to say "the Catholic Church", not only are they not the same, they are complete opposites.

Has everybody forgotten about that little event know as the Reformation?

[usa1776]

Tell us what tenets of Islam are consistent with American freedom.

[usa1776]

In the old days, the US would attack a country and then spend billions on that country. Now they attack us and we make them a victim class and demand they become our judges. Is there any conflict of interests in the new way of doing things"

[SALChamps03]

The only difference is that Catholics don't have a habit of murdering, kidnapping, and blowing things up. Muslims on the contrary do have a tendency to do these things. The murderers of 9/11 lay in wait for years pretending to be good members of their community and then struck when the time was right. Muslims are snakes because of the documented actions they take. Deny that nearly all terrorists turn out to be Muslims. You can't. It isn't a slur. It is a report of fact. Muslims: can't trust them, period. By the way, Muslims aren't a race. They are a cult and a warped belief system.

[Mad Mammoth]

Actually you can count three people as "wrong". But I'd rather be on the big tent side of wrong than in Pat's camp.

I've heard that sentiment expressed from time to time, mostly from people who say they'd "rather go to Hell, because all their friends will be there".

Enjoy your trip! :)

[Mad Mammoth]

To suggest that all Muslims are Atta's is a blatantly ignorant statement. Its some what akin to saying all Christians are Crusaders or Jim Jones. And if you want to select a few verses of the Koran to prove the violent nature of their religion, why don't we just post a few verses from the book of Joshua to prove the violence of Christianity? My point is simply this, religions are composed of men, it is the character and integrity of the MAN being selected for the judicial spot that should be reviewed, not his religious affiliation.

While it may well be true that not all Muslims are terrorists, it has been amply documented that thus far in the War on Terror, all TERRORISTS have turned out to be MUSLIMS.

"Just the facts mam, just the facts"
-- Joe Friday

[freedumb2003]

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

the "religion" of the evil pedophile muhammed (May He Burn in Hell Between 2 Pigs Forever) is an ideology, not a theology. What Pat said is comparable to saying we should not have a practicing, self-identified Communist as a Judge.

[freedumb2003]

My point is simply this, religions are composed of men, it is the character and integrity of the MAN being selected for the judicial spot that should be reviewed, not his religious affiliation.

You have never been more wrong in your life. the moon-god religion founded by the evil muhammed (May He Burn In Hell Between 2 Pigs Forever) is the only religion which calls for the violent removal of averyone who is not a member. It is the only one which specifically targets the death of Jews. It is the only one which says that everyone must convert or die.

You should read the accursed quran. It is evil from cover to cover. I can give you hundreds of links to prove it. Here are a few:

10 Myths about islam

trop -- some links

The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

Educate yourself or prepare to die at the hands of your muslim neighbor (who, I assure you, hates you).

[jrestrepo]

Yes, it is the man and not the religion, but simply enough resolve this simple fact for me...all terrorists are not muslim, but nearly all muslims are terrorists. (Note I did not say all.)

[sinkspur]

Before we can talk about the crusades we need to establish that all parties involved understand the differences between Catholicism and Christianity.

You're not in charge of establishing the national dialogue, nitwit.

Thankfully.

[sinkspur]

Please do not use "Christianity" when you mean to say "the Catholic Church", not only are they not the same, they are complete opposites.

You must be a tent-preachin', snake-handler.

No serious Christian denies that Catholicism is Christianity, except, well, those who are out of the loop.