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."
Sounds fair, but this is illogical and denies the facts. Catholics as a bloc, since the end of the Inquisition, are not a physical threat to those of other faiths. Neither are Protestants, Buddhists, Jews, Wiccans, or any other religion, regional politics such as in India aside. It is Islam which is inherently dangerous, which has historically and currently proven itself intent on destroying anyone who will not submit. Mohammedans (I don't care if that term is un-PC) are simply not to be trusted to keep the United States free, since they are avowed to being us all under their yoke.
Oh, I agree. They weren't very tolerant of much of anything. But that just proves my point. Catholic influence on the founding of this nation was minimal at best. This was a nation founded by Protestants and on those principles.
Kinda like the Tony Alamo stuff printed up about Catholics, I'll bet.
Name me one country where Muslims have come to power and they haven't oppressed other religions and/or minorities.
That's because they could. They can't do that in the United States; we have a Constitution.
I'm not exactly 'functioning' enough to make sense. But , here's part of my 'take'.
Christians have done/said some ignorant/wrong things. OTHER Christians will cry out and raise hell. Same goes for Catholics. And 'patriots'. And Republicans. (hope you're catching that drift) Certain groups stand for certain things...and when some of their members go AGAINST that, most will speak out to defend their beliefs/principles.
You, of all people, should know, that if the American Muslims sincerely wanted to rise up in righteous indignation and denounce their wacko 'brethren', that FR would be their biggest allies.
It hasn't happened.
I HAVE GOT to hit the hay. If you don't mind, we can pick this up 'tomorrow'. (snicker...it's already tomorrow)
The thing our founders were biggest on, deists, episcopaleans, congregationalists, unitarians, presbyterians, etc., it didn't matter much, was respecting individual conscience and beliefs, within an ordered society. That was the seminal idea. Not the advancement of Christianity. Think about it.
And those Protestants, wisely, did not set up religious litmus tests for citizenship or to hold public office.
And they did not restrict "religion" to Christian denominations.
Tony Alamo was a cult leader and herectic who was never considered a part of mainstream Christianity (his minions used to hand out flyers at Protestant Christian events trying to "get us saved"... Read some of his stuff... Real loon there). Can the same be said for CAIR?
That's because they could. They can't do that in the United States; we have a Constitution.
Yeah, that's really worked with liberal activist judges, hasn't it?
You throw the word BIGGOT around like you have lots of practice and experience using that overused terminology.
Washington and Adams attended a Catholic service in Philadelphia at the time of the founding, and Adams wrote that they found it "aweful," which meant at the time that it was awe inspiring. The key founders were curious, questioning and pluralistic men.
... In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words “Jesus Christ” after the words “our lord” in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of [“In a committee of the whole it was determined, by a majority of 7 or 8, that the word ‘Christian’ should be exchanged for the the word ‘Religious’.”] against (See letter of J. M. to Mr Jefferson dated [Jan. 9, 1785]) [...]How about some other Founding Fathers' quotes?
Thomas Jefferson was quite clear:
"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."I'm sure there are many more.
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
--John Adams
One strain of it, the post theocratic Calvinist strain, and prior to the emergence of fundamentalism, as it relates to the nexus of religion and the public square. That point of view remains the dominant one which prevails in the public square to this day.
That's because they could. They can't do that in the United States; we have a Constitution.
And on the larger point: When Protestant Christians had the chance to form their own government, we gained a Constitution. It is my belief (which history bears brute witness to) that when Muslims are given the chance to form their own government, despotisms come to power. Belief systems really do matter.
The only exception we have seen thus far are the beginnings of democracy in Iraq, and that only at the behest and intervention of the United States. Let's hope and pray that they make good use of it.
Unfortunately, I have to sign off. Finals tomorrow and some paper to be finished. Darn. I really hate school.
Arguing against the inclusion of a reference to Jesus Christ in the Virgina Bill of Rights, Madison claimed, "The better proof of reverence for that holy name would be not to profane it by making it a topic of legislative discussion...." Not very secular reasoning there.
The grand thing is that the American ideal of governance has swept Catholic countries across Europe, and to a considerable extent, elsewhere now. So this matter is moot, and the Catholic Church long ago adjusted.
"The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House against it, by successfully contending that the better proof..."
So...why did you change the subject of the sentence from "The opponents of the amendment" to "Madison"?
They did one better; they created and controlled public education:
Source.The first official public school system was created in Boston in 1818 based upon a growing reform movement. The reformers argued for public funding and oversight by offering an emotional plea that poor parents couldn’t afford to send their children to private schools, not to mention their obvious disagreement with the private schools on the issue of religious doctrine. Despite the fact that charity provided for education of the poor and despite a survey by the “Boston School Committee” which proved that 96 percent of the city’s children attended school, and despite no compulsory attendance laws, the government school system was placed upon the country’s shoulders.
During the 1830s and 40s, public schooling found a champion in Horace Mann. A Calvinist at birth, he rejected it for Unitarianism, which at the time attempted to purge sectarian and divisive doctrine. He graduated from Brown University and became an attorney in 1825. He eventually became president of the state senate and focused his time there in the movement to concentrate control of education in the hands of the state.
I'll see if I can track down the religious test aspect of the founding of the 1st Amendment.
Your turn. See my previous. Slacker.
Look up.
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.