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."
Robertson also mentioned in this interview that Rudy Guiliani would make a "great president". I think he has it backwards. I'd personally rather see a pro-life Muslim judge than a pro-abortion president.
Thank you for making some rather well articulated points, it is a welcome edition to this thread.
" Doesn't matter. If a word in the Constitution has a plain meaning, there is no need to look at original intent."
Thats precisely what I have been saying, if the founding fathers wanted to say Christian denominations they would have said just that. Intelligent men like the founding fathers wouldn't leave important words in a constitution (or any other important legal document) so ambiguous, it quite literally means what it says and says what it means.
There are some dumb freepers (usually Michael Savage listeners, BTW) who think that if a person does not support putting Muslims in camps, that person is a terrorist-lover. They simply do not have the mental capacity to understand that, in this country, the law treats people as individuals.
If an individual Muslim commits a terrorist act, string him up. If an individual Muslim is a law-abiding member of American society, he should be treated no different than anyone else.
And, I love it when freepers from places like Idaho and Florida put up pictures from 9/11 and tell me that I don't "get" what happened that day. Hey, dumbasses, I missed being in the WTC on 9/11 by about 15 minutes. I got to watch pretty much the whole damn thing from my balcony in Jersey City. Such people can bite me.
"If Islam is so incompatible with democracy then how do you explain the success of democratic reforms in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
It happened because of American troops and American values. I applaud it, but islam will constantly threaten its viability...
Peddle it somewhere else. We have plenty of anecdotal evidence about the violent nature of Muslims.
I'm not peddling anything. You may have a case of paranoia, IMO.
We have plenty of anecdotal evidence about the violent nature of Muslims.
Violent nature of Muslims? Several million Muslims are American citizens. AFAIK, there is no evidence that they are any more violent than the average American.
Thanks!
I WILL check it out!
:)
"He is in the process of cleaning the field up, imho. I don't know how long that will take."
I believe this is VERY true!
That is exactly what was done until 1960. In fairness to JFK, he would be considered a right wing wacko today, and I would prefer his policies over Bushes.
It doesn't make sense to just ignore the historical context of teh Constitution.
It is simply not true that Catholicism is not included under the umbrella of "Christianity."
It is you who are out of step.
Just for a historical note, the Baptist were around since about 400 A.D. Would you call them Protestants? I assume not since the Protestanst didn't come until the reformation.
As already noted in other posts, there were many Christians oppressed by the Catholic Church. No, the Catholic Church was never at any time in history the only "church". It was powerful enough to suppress others at times, it no longer is. The struggle between Christianity and Catholicism has existed since day one of the Catholic Church, and every day since.
Let me get this straight, you are saying that the Catholic Church isn't the Christian church throughout history, and your commenting on my lack of knowledge of western history?
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.