Pat Robertson stirs up debate (Islam is not a peaceful religion)

nj.com ^ | April 02, 2003 | KRYSTAL KNAPP

[TLBSHOW]

PRINCETON BOROUGH - The Rev. Pat Robertson spoke from the lectern at Princeton University last night like it was his pulpit, calling students to stand up for their moral convictions and not be swayed by popular culture.

His hair is all gray now, he had surgery in February and is recovering from prostate cancer, but the evangelist showed no signs of wavering last night when he spoke at the invitation of a student group.

[sinkspur]

There are some Muslims who under the cloak of religion are encouraging others to commit murder, plain and simple. I do not believe that they are protected by the First Amendment.

Who are they? You should turn them in, if you know about them.

[george wythe]

Do you agree that Aztecs can practice their religion in the US as long as they don't break US laws?

Do you agree that Muslims can practice their religion in the US as long as they don't break US laws?

[FreeReign]

Yes I have noted their whole plan and if this country does not wake up from the deep sleep, then in 20 years with the help of the likes of Grover Norquest and Zogbys and Clair and the AMC and useful idiots in our government we won't stand a chance against this bloody cult!

What has Zogby done to aid the "plan"?

[moneyrunner]

Jimmy,

I have read your responses, and realize that you were reacting to those who wished to ban a worldwide religion. Many people would tend to agree with you. However, would you not agree that those who protested against Pat Robertson mischaracterized his views and slandered his opinions?

Let’s examine your views. You also take an absolutist position regarding viewpoints. Based on your criteria we should not ban groups that advocate killing Jews, the extermination of Christians, the murder of homosexuals, the enslavement of blacks (or whites) or the ritual slaughter of newborn girl children. These are only viewpoints and society should not act against them until action is taken to implement these views.

It so happens that an example of this approach to one problem is the recent attack by a convert to Islam in Kuwait when he rolled two grenades into tents occupied by the commanding officers of his battalion, shooting at least one of them in the back as he tried to flee. Until he committed this act, there is not reason to have restrained him.

By a curious coincidence, the same applies to the highjackers of the jets that took 3,000 lives on 9/11. Prior to this act, by your rules, there is nothing that we could, as a society, have done to restrain them.

The Moslem schools in the Middle East are teaching their young that Jews are pigs and monkeys, to be killed wherever they are found. By your rules, they are simply exercising the free expression of their religion. And if the rising generation of Arabs are indoctrinated with a faith that makes it a holy goal to go to paradise by exploding next to a Jew or Christian, taking them to their deaths, we are required to repeat the mantra that the free exercise of speech and religion is the ultimate good.

Is there any reason, in your universe, where prior restraint should be exercised on the free expression of speech or religion?

[Jhoffa_]

There are some Muslims who under the cloak of religion are encouraging others to commit murder, plain and simple. I do not believe that they are protected by the First Amendment.

We have laws against conspiracy..

You cannot use either a church or a mosque for such things. Further, you may be RICO'ed and have the whole place knocked down like bowling pins. This is as it should be.

This has no bearing on the thousands of peaceful muslims someone (who shall remain nameless, but began this thread) wishes to persecute because of their religion.

It's unjust.. You shouldn't do it to a peaceful: Christian, Jew or Muslim.

It's not scriptural and it's certainly not Constitutional.

[crude77]

Seems that we are not as far apart as I thought. Thanks for your comments. As I fear getting in over my head I usually lurk and try to learn. Lots of savy folks on this site.

Greg

[FreedomCalls]

If these Aztec's don't perform their sacrifice, and they follow the law... to the letter. Does the first amendment apply to them?

If the Aztec priests preaching from their holy places exhort others to kill for human sacrifice -- and others do -- are the Aztec priests protected by the First Amendment?

[Jhoffa_]

:)

[Maeve]

"Are you familiar with the Crusades?" the student replied, to which several members of the audience applauded.

More evidence of how a catch phrase replaces the truth.

If it weren't for the Crusades, Notre Dame would be a Mosque, and everyone of European background would either be dead or Muslim.

[Duke Nukum]

After 9/11, why do we need Pat Robertson saying this? We see with our own eyes what kind of religion Islam is.

[ladyinred]

You ever notice that "hate speech" only happens to be something the leftists and or other special interest groups say it is?

[FreedomCalls]

Who are they? You should turn them in, if you know about them.

How about Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi?

[Jhoffa_]

Is there any reason, in your universe, where prior restraint should be exercised on the free expression of speech or religion?

Strawman.

Fact remains that these people are protected by the constitution. If they are conspiring, as opposed to expressing a belief then they are protected.

I mean, I personally think pedophiles should be lined up and shot.

Should I be "restrained" from presenting my point of view? Is it a crime to speak my mind?

Or does it only become a crime when I say: 'Okay bob, let's get the gun and go kill some chickenhawks' ?

Your criteria would have half of FR excluded from First Amendment protections.

[TLBSHOW]

If Islam has their way in America anything said against their cult of death would be hate speech!

[Jhoffa_]

I think all child molesters should be shot on sight..

Can I say that? Or are you going to strip my First Amendment right's from me?

[sinkspur]

If you want to go to the Gaza Strip and attempt to apply American law to a Palestinian, knock yourself out.

[TLBSHOW]

islam is trying to use our very foundations against us!

[FreedomCalls]

You cannot use either a church or a mosque for such things.

Suppose the church or mosque being used to exhort young Muslim men to suicide attacks is located in a foreign country away from the reach of U.S. laws, while the young men filled with hate, board American airliners and kill 3000 Americans? What should we do?

[Radioactive]

Islam is an Unconstitutional religion because it advocates a theocracy.

The major leaders of Islam have made it their Jihad to take over every country on earth.

The Muslims are infiltrating every country...including the USA, England, France, Spain, the Soviet Union and just about every other country. They are breeding like flies and are teaching their children hate.

The talk in most Mosques today is that one day the US will be run by an Islamic president and will become a Moslem nation.

Take a look at all the Muslim nations my freind, and see poverty, strife, disease and a lack of freedom.

An Islamic theocracy in the USA is the goal of these bastards and they must be stopped.

This supposed religion must be made illegal due to its goal of takeover of our government.

Ban Islam now or our decendants will curse us for our stupidity.

[LowOiL]

Oh well, I suppose massive, systematic oppression of innocent people we don't agree with.. at the federal level no less, was exactly what Jesus had in mind when he uttered the "golden rule"

Well it wasn't the Judge Not, let people rape your own without calling it evil, turn the other cheek, lay down and die Jesus either.

What part of "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5) " did you find golden enough to defend? When they take public office, just what/who does putting their hand on the Bible and swearing to uphold the constitution concern? If such people are true to their religion, they can not with good faith actually swear to uphold the constitution now can they? Their religion is/would be in direct conflict with the constitutions "freedom of religion".

BTW.. I don't support "massive, systematic oppression of innocent people", but I do support not supporting those that actively purport to tear down others because of their religion. Somehow I guess you thought I did (or just assigned it to me because I defended TBShow against a wrong use of your "golden rule"). But if a person running for office does actively and publically suggest that "They (the unbelievers) should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides. (Koran 5:33) " I do support letting it known to the public.