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."
Show us where Robertson suggested a Religious Test.
Can't the man just stop mouthing off? What a nut case.
No religious test I agree, but all must answer one simple question. If 60% of this country became Muslim and they wanted to instill Sharia law would you (a) Fight with all your blood and sweat to preserve the freedoms of our constitution; or (b) peacefully accept the transition to a muslim state.
The statements by the former head of CAIR (not to mention that many other relevant quotes) certainly point to an agenda of converting every American to Islam. This is their long term plan. When the day comes are you on the side of the Constitution or the side of your Religion.
Wait a minute: Didn't this guy also support the anti-Christian dicator of Zaire? Didn't he say the state department should be blown up? I won't support a judge who condones terrorism, and that means I wouldn't support Pat, the violence-promoting, unethical, money-worshipping phony preacher.
Islam is a religion + sociopolitical system.
Any Muslim themselves will tell you this.
One who drinks.
Apparently so.
"And then will have Christian Shar'ia." With a careful reading of the New Testament, it is just such a kingdom that Christ identifies. The distinction might be lost to you, but living at the foot of the Cross (a life I cannot claim to have obtained, yet) is freedom with responsibility for personal action, exercising restraint so that harm is not done to others or to the kingdom. God your Creator is righteous and unassailable.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355033/posts?page=631#631
Obviously not with a Christian bible. In fact, it doesn't have to be an oath with any bible. In fact, if you read what the Constitution says, it doesn't have to be an oath at all; it can be an "Affirmation".
Our nation's Founders wisely created a Constitutional republic in which any individual, regardless of which religion he believed in (or if he believed in none at all), could hold "any Office or public Trust under the United States" as long as he supported the Constitution. Pat Robertson may not approve of that aspect of our Constitution, but unless it is amended that's the way it is.
Excluding all Muslims from judgeships would clearly constitute a "religious Test", and that is specifically prohibited by Article VI of the Constitution.
God is the Judge in America.
Well when it comes to hate, CAIR are the experts. LOL!
There was an interesting thread about freedom of religion the other day. You are correct: the Constitution trumps excluding anyone from office or discharging a public function on account of religion. It's pretty damn clear in black & white, carved in marble.
But I don't think the Founders meant much more than that Catholics, Methodists and Baptists were the ones who should not be excluded. And that we ought to tolerate the occasional law abiding Hindoo, Jew or pan-spiritual savage in our midst. Please forgive the sarcasm.
This in all seriousness, however: the Founders did not live in the world of 9/11. It's time to amend the Constitution. "Members of violent and terrorist cults shall be disqualified from Office or public Trust under the United States."
That's an easy question. If Muslims (whether there were 10% or 60% or 99% of them) wanted to intill Sharia law in this country, I would obviously choose (a). Similarly, if Mormons or Catholics or Protestants or Jews or any other religious group wanted to instill their religious laws in this country, I would choose (a).
I don't accept tyranny no matter what name or religious banner it goes by. But I evaluate individuals on an individual basis, and I don't automatically exclude entire groups based on some (unconstitutional) religious test.
Bump to the picture in post number 9. Down with Islam.
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course that's assuming judges don't legislate from the bench.
Very well texted :) :) :)
Jeff
The judges we have don't uphold the law. We can destroy the country ourselves, we don't need their help.
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.
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.