Posted on 05/03/2005 2:33:03 PM PDT by 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."
Nope. But then I don't consider Bush to be "wacko". Pat Robertson, on the other hand...
I have vastly greater trust that Bush will support our Constitution than I do that Robertson will. Obviously Robertson appears quite willing to ignore the Constitution and its Article VI, as indicated by his desire to exclude all Muslims from being judges.
Is it at all possible, that is it not condescension on my part, but rather a lack of humility and respect on your part.
FaithFreedom is NOT my website and I am not hawking it to you. You asked questions and I directed you there because I felt that you might find what you are looking for there without engaging me all day on the subject. A simple "thank you I'll check it out" would have been enough.
You are frustrated because you want instant gratification. Slow down and take it easy. You will learn.
Knowledge and wisdom are not synonymous.
Diogenes, could you post your List of all the contributions that this cult has contributed to America/the world? (I can't find it.)
" You are frustrated because you want instant gratification."
So now your telling me why I feel the way I do, that is a little presumptuous? No I am frustrated because you keep implying that I don't know what I am talking about, but never refute what I say.
Sad, isn't it? I really don't understand what makes Robertson tick. He's too well educated and smart to say some of the things he says out of sheer ignorance. But I am not sure how what he says advances any agenda he might believe in. It seems more often than not that what he says backfires against it. Maybe the guy just loves attention.
Can't I rightfully consider any set of beliefs that are pursued with a conscientious devotion a 'religion'?
Communism a religion?
Anything involving a priori assumptions that are not subject to the scientific method of evaluating has certain religious overtones.
Um, a simple search into my past forum activities will illustrate why that statement is absurd. But I am starting to expect that sorts of remarks from you.
That is an interesting definition but I doubt it is the most useful one when it comes to matters of public policy.
Tell that to the dictionary, its not my definition.
The List that Diogenes keeps posting, puts their contributions into gut-wrenching, jaw-dropping CLARITY.
Ksnavely, are you for real? I mean please tell me.
I need a cup of coffee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.