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."
> "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.
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?
During the Crusades, Catholicism WAS Christianity.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
That makes more sense, and I would agree with that.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So, following your logic, Catholics can be excluded from public office in the US due to their religion.
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.