Pat Robertson Calls Muslims Satanic
Posted in Politics, Religion by George
” These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it’s motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize what we’re dealing with… The goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination “ - Pat Robertson
I read this and was pretty shocked. He must have been trying to shock and awe, because coming out and saying something like this obviously isn’t politically correct. When referring to Muslims, he states that “Islam is not a religion of peace.”
I will agree that many extremists are really crazy and are definitely not interested in any peace. There are tons of people out there that are begging for somebody to kill Americans, and this is wrong, but there are tons of American Muslims that are perfectly chill.
And Mr. Robertson, a Christian, is basing a lot of his “facts” on the Koran. Yes, it does say some pretty violent things in there, but if you look in the Bible (I don’t really feel like digging up the facts), there are some pretty violent things too. The moral of the story is, don’t take scripture literally, and don’t globalize. That does nothing but piss people off.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Pat Robertson saying this kind of crap, sadly, is nothing new.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Yeah, Pat Robertson is just a big moron and I cringe when people view him as a spokesperson for Christianity. If anything he is hurting the faith. He has done some good things that have allowed people to find faith, but I bet there are a lot more people that look at him and view him as a representative of Christianity and hear the ignorant and hurtful things he says, which actually pushes people away from Christianity. What a hypocrit; he condemns a bunch of different groups of people when one of the main purposes of Christianity is to give life and not condemn. He thinks homosexuals are satanic, Muslims want an evil empire, that women should be subordinate, anyone who endorses evolution is committing a sin, and that just about everyone is going to Hell unless they believe the same way he does. How did this guy get to be in such an influential position!? It’s probably because he can talk in a comforting tone of voice on the 700 Club. He has no right to call anyone else a crazed fanatic. Muslim terrorists are extremists and are terrible people who are terribly mislead and misinformed, but don’t try and stereotype everyone in that religion into that category. People like Pat Robertson are the reason that so many people view the war in Iraq and any conflict in the Middle East as a war between Christians and Muslims.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
You’d be surprised how often people with a “comforting” voice succeed in this world. I wish I had a comforting voice…
March 16th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I’d like to echo everything written by george and steve on this topic and point out it is Robertson’s extremist Muslim counterparts are the ones training and brainwashing impressionable young men into killing “infidels.” If taken out of its textual and historical context, any piece of scripture can be used to support almost anything. For example, the concept of “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is often quoted as one of the more violent texts in Christianity (It occurs in the Old Testament, in a group of scriptures both Muslims and Christians claim as holy) and used as a justification for taking revenge. However, the phrase occurs twice in Hebrew law (Exodus 21:24 and Deuteronomy 19:21) and it both cases it occurs within the context of an established justice system, and concerns the idea of giving fair and adequate punishment for offenses. While it is often quoted by those trying to take the law into their own hands, it actually occurs within the context of prohibiting this type of vigilante justice.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Good comment Josh. I’ll agree that any part of scripture can be taken literally, and on the same token, even though the Koran has a ton of violence in it, the only reason that it’s really being carried out now is because of the crazy interpretors that are pretending that is exactly what the Koran says. They very likely could have been following the Christian Bible, it just depends on who is interpreting. Heck, they could be following a book about cheese and interpreting grinding the cheese as killing people… who knows?
March 17th, 2006 at 9:12 am
The cluelessness on this subject is repeated every time the subject comes up.
Robertson’s extremist Muslim counterparts are the ones training and brainwashing impressionable young men into killing “infidels.”
The majority of the people blowing themselves up do it for secular, political reasons. But nice try. The Muslim religious nuts are much more prone to kill each other rather then infidels — for example the bloodletting between Shiites and Sunnis relative to the bombing of the mosque in Al Askari Mosque in Samarra (estimated body count of about 1600 in the last three weeks). However, just like black-on-black violence in the US, Muslim-on-Muslim violence is just so passe that we don’t really give a f*ck about it unless it involves some “infidel” that’s highligted on Fox News or CNN.
even though the Koran has a ton of violence in it, the only reason that it’s really being carried out now is because of the crazy interpretors that are pretending that is exactly what the Koran says.
The Koran helps because it helps to have the support of the ignorant (just like here) when you do violent things and want support, moral and otherwise. The lack of understanding of the cartoon controversy shows that both the European and US right wingers can take an issue and present it in such a way that a totally wrong interpretation can be presented by the media and accepted by the public at large.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:38 am
You’re wrong when you say that terrorists almost always do suicidal bombings for secular reasons. There is an extremist view that if a Muslim kills “infidels” (ie. non-Muslims or people who are “enemies of Islam” ie. Americans) then they will be given an exalted place in heaven where there are rivers of milk and honey and all the virgin girls a man can desire. This is not a secular reason, it is definitely rooted in an extremist religious belief. It may be tied in with political reasons, but the real motivation behind suicide bombings is a religious one.
I think you just repeated George’s comment about misinterpretting the Koran and I’m not really sure what your point about the cartoon issue is supposed to mean. You seem to like to insult the views expressed on this site with very poor reasons.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
I think the reasons are neither entirely secular nor religious. The reason that muslim extremists kill people is because they’re brainwashed. You don’t need to be Muslim to be brainwashed - it happens to plenty of Christians today. It can happen to people in and out of religious context, as well.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
You seem to like to insult the views expressed on this site with very poor reasons.
“Just like here” means just like in the US not just like on gimme-five. I don’t see anyone being insulted other than saying that I think you’re being overly simplistic.
As to suicide bombers being religious or secular, show me some stats. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine:
Robert Pape, in Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (look it up on Amazon) — The basis of Dying to Win is Pape’s study of the 315 known suicide terrorist attacks that occurred in the world between 1980 and 2003, attacks carried out by Muslims, Tamils, Sikhs, and Kurds. Pape concludes that “the data show there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any of the world’s religions.”
“Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.”
Yes, Pape has documented both the valid logic behind the use of suicide attacks – they are an effective weapon for an inferior force fighting a great power, especially a pain-averse, democratic great power – and the reality that groups using such attacks are playing for strategic stakes: Their goal is victory, not mere destruction. The suicide attacks by each of the groups studied in Dying to Win, Pape concludes, were “mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than the product of Islamic fundamentalism.” In sum, America faces a logical, patient, and deliberate enemy, one with clear strategic goals. This enemy is attacking because he perceives his country, culture, and/or religion are under attack. In addition, Pape shows conclusively that suicide attackers are usually respected and even revered in their own societies because they are defending those societies against a foreign threat. Simply put, Pape suggests there is no sound reason to believe the pool of potential suicide attackers can be dried up as long as their societies perceive an existential threat to their existence.
That was written by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden desk at the CIA. But what does he know? Lets take our cue from Robertson, and trust people that tell us they attack us because they hate our freedoms…
March 18th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Don’t you like how you can use italics and bold in the comments now on gimme-five as opposed to before?
March 18th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Recently The Boston Globe wrote an article about Pat Robertson’s comments about Islam. If you’ve noticed, all the media outlets always talk about Islam and yet Muslims are never part of the conversation. The only time microphones and camreas are on Muslims is when a bomb goes off. Moderate Muslims are always trying to get their voices heard yet no one is ever there to listen. I sent my response to the Boston Globe editor, that of course never got published. I hope this will give you a better insight to the true Islam and how real Muslims are feeling.
It’s a sad day when I read things like the article “Robertson says Islam isn’t a faith of peace” and realize how little people know about Islam. If there was even a slight understanding of the faith, things like “the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination.” would never be said. Terrorism as we know it started in the 1970’s. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all been around long before that. Each religion as well as country has had their share of mistakes. To point the finger at others and not admit to ones own treacheries, is a mistake.
In the article Robertson was also angered that Muslims were so upset about the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him). If the world actually knew the truth about Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) they would understand why disrespecting such a great guy would indeed anger Muslims. He was an orphan, he told Muslims to free slaves over 1,000 years before the West did, he gave all his wealth to the hungry, the orphans, and the widows, he was grateful to God, and worshiped God. He was a great man. Unfortunately there are a lot of misunderstandings between Muslims and non-Muslims. If Muslims were given a chance to speak, perhaps non-Muslim including Pat Robertson, would understand what Islam is really about.
March 19th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
And kudos to you for making an effort to make your voice heard. The US is really a different kind of place than anywhere else. We are intentionally a plural society, meaning that we do not all believe the same things. This is what the Constitution protects and allows, diverse people living together in a society while being free to believe what they believe. This is the ideal anyway, and I think that a lot of people have lost sight of that goal.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:50 pm
“compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”
Maybe but militant Muslims think a lot of land is theirs that isn’t. See Hamas Charter.
This definition Pape gives is too wide. 911 can be explained with a secular motive too with this definition.
Dogmatic religious fundamentalists whether Christian or Muslim are dangerous because they know the The Truth and aren’t willing to listen to reason or facts.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
This definition Pape gives is too wide. 911 can be explained with a secular motive too with this definition.
Do ya think? What would the secular motivation be?
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:06 am
“What would the secular motivation be?”
Get US troops from occupying Saudi Arabia and enforcing no fly zones in Iraq.
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:31 am
Get US troops from occupying Saudi Arabia and enforcing no fly zones in Iraq.
Sounds like you’re saying bin Laden’s Oct 7, 2001 statement is secular. Even though he uses the word “infidel” and lots of “Praise Allah” throughout, it’s a political speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/158563...
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:07 am
I am not saying that but go back and read what Pape wrote. It fits what he says because what he says is so broad.
“Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”
bin Ladin considers Saudi Arabia his people’s homeland. He committed terrorism to compel the US to withdrawal their forces from what he considered his people’s homeland.
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:07 pm
So, I guess it worked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.
The decision was confirmed by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a joint news conference with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan.
Both men stressed that there were no differences between their countries and their co-operation would continue.
Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq.
Of course, Qatar is way too small, and we prefer having troops and bases in Iraq…
March 29th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Surprise Suprise Terrorism does work!
Abu Daoud, the key planner of the assault on the 1972 Munich Olympics that left 11 Israeli athletes dead recently had an interview where he said that terrorism works and he shows no regrets.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articl...
“Before Munich, we were simply terrorists. After Munich, at least people started asking who are these terrorists? What do they want? Before Munich, nobody had the slightest idea about Palestine,” he said.