Pat Robertson:No Muslim judges

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

[cloud8]

> "No religious Test" meant you didn't need to have membership in any established denomination in order to hold public office. Period.

In fact, in colonial New England one had to be a member in good standing of the Puritan church not only in order to hold public office, but even to vote. This is the basis for the No religious Test clause.

[26lemoncharlie]

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).

Where did you get this definition or description! I have never heard such Claptrap twisted BS in my life. Who's definition is this -- is this yours!!??

Please I have to know! Where did you get this?

[Ksnavely]

Nothing you said changes the fact that the character of the man must be evaluated not his religious affiliation. It does not matter if 99 out of 100 are bad (hypothetically speaking here I am not stating I believe 99 out of 100 Muslims are terrorists). If we judge that one honorable person by the deeds of the 99 dishonorable, we have committed an injustice to that man. This is the bedrock of our legal system, I am actually stunned that so many people seem to apply this concept to every other facet of their lives except for their view on Muslims

[Ksnavely]

Asking some one to apologize is not analogous to a fist connecting to the nose. There is no violation of free speech to demand an apology and a retraction if you feel the words were harmful. Free speech would not be violated until either party resorted to physical coercive tactics to force the other party to capitulate.

"Demanding a retraction or apology is an attempt to replace freedom with group think."

No it is not, plus the other party has the RIGHT now to follow the group think, again if there is no physical coercion than rights have not been violated.

"they have no right to demand an apology for his opinions."

Yes they do, just as you have a right to demand an apology from me if you feel I said something slanderous about you. Again I have the right to accept or reject your demand.

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

So you don't want to change the view point of a bunch of liberals and entitlement centered people? My point is simple, we are not on the road to tyranny because we have a good constitution and checks and balances to protect our freedoms. Those mechanisms are what keep our rights secure, not whether or not a Islamic group demands an apology from Pat.

[Ksnavely]

During the Crusades, Catholicism WAS Christianity.

[Ksnavely]

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

That is a total non-sequitur, you say the Catholic Church during the Crusades was not the Christian Church than you now talk about the reformation which happened quite a bit later than the Crusades. I assume when you say Christianity you mean Protestantism (because you seem to define real Christianity under the Protestant terms of scripture and scripture only). So if Protestantism wasn't around during the Crusades, and the Catholic Church was not the Christian Church during the Crusades, then what was the REAL Christian Church at the times of the Crusades?

[Ksnavely]

"all terrorists are not Muslim, but nearly all Muslims are terrorists"

Simple, your premise that nearly all Muslims are terrorists flawed. Because most Muslims are not terrorists, ergo they don't deserved to be by default treated as such.

[cloud8]

> Christianity in previous centuries...was a proselytizing, conquering religion which was ruled by a rigid, undemocratic hierarchy...which imposed its beliefs on others... But it moderated and adapted itself to modern, pluralistic society and emerging views about religious tolerance.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a Moslem Martin Luther to come along and bring about a Reformation.

[dpwiener]

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?

Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Reconstructionist, whatever. What's the difference? If you worship Christ, that makes you a Christian. As a Jew, you all look the same to me.

Just as all Muslims look the same to you.

[jrestrepo]

I owe you an apology on my comment, I showed a little dyslexic moment...sorry about that.

I meant to say that all Muslims are not terrorists, but nearly all terrorist are Muslims.

[cloud8]

> I'm not the least bit worried that the majority of Americans will voluntarily convert to Islam and then amend the laws and Constitution to impose Sharia. Maybe it will happen in other countries, but not here.

Unrestricted Moslem immigration is transforming Europe. Sharia is practiced in parts of Ontario. The Islamic Society of Boston is building a $22 million Islamic center on a 1.9-acre lot (refs on the Boston center: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/115). It's not a question of it's happening here, but how soon.

[Ksnavely]

That makes more sense, and I would agree with that.

[cloud8]

> It is important to distinguish between the fanatics and the mainstream. There are elements within Islam that are dangerous, those need to be weeded out and eliminated.

How are you going to do that? "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," like Ann Coulter says? Is there some sort of test by which the degree of their zealotry can be measured? Will the sermons of their leaders be monitored by DHS for non-mainstream content? If they are American citizens, would you have them imprisoned?

> However, it is simply preposterous to say that everyone practicing Islam is a fanatic who is 10 seconds away from bombing your local coffee house or theater.

Whether the girl in front of me in the checkout line has a bomb strapped onto her under her veil is only a matter of the distance between here and Tel Aviv. Or is it the distance between here and Madrid...or NYC?

[Modernman]

go on michael savages web page and watch the actual videos of the beheading of innocent people by these islamic monsters, you will want to nuke them all.

The guy who cuts my hair is a Muslim (and he's gay, too. Go figure). I see nothing in common between him and the terrorists.

Labelling people based on the group they belong to, rather than the content of their character, is a liberal practice.

[Modernman]

Muslims cannot be trusted to hold the Constitution superior to there murderous cult.

In the past, many Americans used to believe that Catholics could not be trusted to hold public office because they would hold the directives of the Pope superior to the Constitution.

[Ksnavely]

"How are you going to do that?"

By doing exactly what we are doing know, by searching for the terrorists, toppling the friendly regimes of terrorists and by using law enforcement to find the bad guys. What I find most appalling about this label so many are putting on all Muslims is that fact that it is counterproductive to winning the war on terror. To solve any problem you must first correctly identify it. It would be a misdiagnosis of the problem so say that all of Islam is tainted with terrorist tendencies and therefore should all be treated with suspicion and bared from holding offices or judicial positions based on religion as the sole criterium. And that misdiagnosis could lead to disastrous consequences if real action was taken based on it.

[Modernman]

What are they doing (the muslims) in our Christian country, anyway?

If a Muslim is a law-abiding American citizen, it's as much his country as it is any Christian's.

We're not Saudi Arabia- nobody is any less a citizen of this country due to their religion.

[Modernman]

You obviously know nothing about the vernacular of the day.Ministers and theologians of the time always used the terms "Religion" and "Christian" synonymously.

Doesn't matter. If a word in the Constitution has a plain meaning, there is no need to look at original intent. "Religion" includes not only Christian denominations, but every other faith on the planet.

[Modernman]

Canada is starting down the road of Sharia Law. There have been quite a few posts about it here at FR.

Canada is allowing private disputes to be settled under Sharia law if the parties to that dispute voluntarily agree to that choice of law.

The same thing has been legal in the USA for several decades. If you and I decide to have our business contract decided under Sharia law, American courts will enforce that decision and apply Sharia law to our dispute.

Does that surprise you?

[Modernman]

Your statement is entirely wrong, unless you define Catholicism as Christianity

So, following your logic, Catholics can be excluded from public office in the US due to their religion.