Join 3,513 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Sorry, more from Pat Robertson.
September 20, 2001 11:55 AM   Subscribe

Sorry, more from Pat Robertson. It seems Pat had a really in-depth discussion on his show with a "reformed Muslim" about what the Muslim faith really entails...
posted by conquistador (33 comments total)

 
Some of those same erroneous comments about Islam could be made correctly about Robertson's (and other's) brand of christianity, imho. Submission, "yielding to baptism" hmmm. The only thing that I can agree with is that we need to love Muslims. But then again, my definition of love doesn't equate to conversion.
posted by kat at 12:16 PM on September 20, 2001


Robertson: It was the love of Jesus that just melted you?

Safa: It did. It broke me.


note to self: Avoid the love of Jesus on Hot days.
posted by th3ph17 at 12:17 PM on September 20, 2001


I love this part at the end:

Robertson: What happened to you? You went to Sweden and something opened your heart.

Safa: I saw the love of Jesus.

Robertson: Is that it?

Safa: It changed me. Oh yes, the pure, solid, raw love of God.


whoa, you sure you didn't stumble into a strip club?

Robertson: You never had that before?

Safa: During all these years of prayer and fasting I never experienced it.

Robertson: It was the love of Jesus that just melted you?

Safa: It did. It broke me.


It broke you? Where do I sign up for this?

Robertson: There are many Muslims who must be seeking like you are.

Safa: Absolutely, especially during this time. We need to love Muslims. We have six to eight million Muslims in America and we need to love them.


...and there it is, the subtle hint that these people that are lost and confused in their submission to god should be converted.

And by following Pat, you don't have to submit anything to christianity, sure thing Pat. Muhammed lead a crazy life? Didn't Jesus hang out with sinners 24/7? Oh, and that wacky ayatollah is nothing like the Pope or Pat Robertson and how they're "closer to god" than anyone else.
posted by mathowie at 12:20 PM on September 20, 2001


matt, i fell all warm and fuzzy.
posted by th3ph17 at 12:24 PM on September 20, 2001


*feel*. see, i am so overcome i can barely type.
posted by th3ph17 at 12:24 PM on September 20, 2001


It would seem that Pat is having a hard time adjusting to being swiftly edged out as the world's craziest religious fanatic.

My heart goes out to him and his family. (not)
posted by BentPenguin at 12:27 PM on September 20, 2001


Look, mathowie, stop being bitter or smarty pants. We got this guy--some find--but the "other side" gopt Cat Stevens and his new group, The Submissives.
If there is one redeeming thing about Judaism it is that it doesn't look for converts.
Finding salvation and love and god etc must be nice. And he gets to chat with not just Pat but his bottom, Jerry Foulwell.
posted by Postroad at 12:27 PM on September 20, 2001


Robertson: It was the love of Jesus that just melted you?

Safa: It did. It broke me.

note to self: Avoid the love of Jesus on Hot days.


reminds me of the Tom Waits song, Chocolate Jesus
posted by billder at 12:36 PM on September 20, 2001


this is sad.
posted by adnanbwp at 12:39 PM on September 20, 2001


Seems to me that if you want to find out about Islam, it's probably not the most intellectually honest route in the world to talk to someone who's renounced Islam. (Then again, intellectual honesty isn't exactly the goal here, eh?)
posted by ChrisTN at 12:42 PM on September 20, 2001


ChrisTN: Never thought I'd read "Pat Robertson" and "intellectual" in the same thread. Thanks.
posted by raysmj at 12:46 PM on September 20, 2001


Now maybe Falwell will bring a "converted" homosexual on the 700 Club for Pat cozy with. Stay tuned tomorrow for a converted ACLU member and his brother , a converted reader of People For the American Way!
The real thing is just too much for them to handle. Can I get a converted amen?
posted by nofundy at 12:51 PM on September 20, 2001


[note to self: Avoid the love of Jesus on Hot days.]

Thank you for that laugh. What a way to end a day at work!
posted by revbrian at 12:52 PM on September 20, 2001


For more misguided propaganda from a "Christian" who doesn't even bother to hide his prejudice or get his facts straight when it comes to slamming Islam, I highly recommend Allah Had No Son by good old Jack Chick. A laugh a minute. It's based largely on The Islamic Invasion by Robert A. Morey. This book is the perfect example of the dangers of bringing your prejudices to research... if you want to believe that Islam is a racist, violent religion, you can spin the facts in such a way that it looks like your thesis is correct.

For an excellent essay examining the most common distortions of Islam and Morey's research errors in detail, see Shabir Ally's Robert Morey's Moon-god Myth and Other Deceptive Attacks on Islam. Not the best introduction to the religion, but a good refutation of Pat Robertson, Robert Morey, and other types who promote their religion by slandering others.
posted by turaho at 1:01 PM on September 20, 2001


Stay tuned tomorrow for a converted ACLU member and his brother , a converted reader of People For the American Way!

"We've got here today on the show John Smith, who is a reformed African-American. Mr. Smith, you used to be an African-American, but you gave all that up...Tell us why...."

I'm stunned that he would actually point to a passage in the Koran and say "see, they talk about killing." I mean, has he ever read the Old Testament?

The lifestyle of Muhammed?! He married about 12 women, and I’m not sure it was all that exemplary, was it?

Bwahahahahaha!!!! In the time of Muhammed, the friggin' Pope had about 12 wives. The hypocrisy is waist-deep in that guy's world.

Oh shit, I forgot. Pat hates the Pope too.
posted by jpoulos at 1:34 PM on September 20, 2001


God bless that religious right. I mean, really, it's a little terrifying to know there are actually some crackpots out there preaching violent, bloody stuff like this:

And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

Oh wait. That's from The Bible, Leviticus 26:7-8. My bad.
posted by UnReality at 2:01 PM on September 20, 2001


I wonder what the relapse rate is for former Muslims? Are there any former former Muslims out there who want to contribute to the discussion?
posted by srboisvert at 2:23 PM on September 20, 2001


Oh come on, I bet that was just a pep talk to be used before battle.. I think whats scary is that people look up to guys like Robertson and Falwell - I mean, in countries like Afghanistan they have basic education, and so should be easily swayed, but in America? Ah well, still this wasn't that bad in the current context - most of the fundamentalists sections of the major religions seem to be behaving for once..
posted by Mossy at 2:28 PM on September 20, 2001


... if you want to believe that Islam is a racist, violent religion, you can spin the facts in such a way that it looks like your thesis is correct.

And if you want to believe Christianity is a stupid religion, you can spin the facts in such a way that it looks like your thesis is correct. You guys are doing the same thing.

Incidently, for those who don't know, the Bible keeps the Old Testament as a reference and history for the events of the New Testament. The New Testament is a new covenant with God, where the "eye for an eye" stuff is replaced with the basic tenant of "Love your neighbor as yourself". Doesn't promote violence at all.
posted by y0mbo at 2:28 PM on September 20, 2001


Oh, you can spin anything y0mbo...

I was going to list some that could be misinterpreted, but you can just check out The Skeptics Annotated Bible instead, click cruelty, then scroll down beyond Malachi...

And thats the King James version that most people use - anyone know which one is the best translation? I've been told that its the New International, which is the one I've got on my shelf.
posted by Mossy at 3:11 PM on September 20, 2001


The New Testament is a new covenant with God, where the "eye for an eye" stuff is replaced with the basic tenant of "Love your neighbor as yourself".

"Replaced"?

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)

As Hillel famously put it: "What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah: The rest is commentary. Now go and study."

On the other hand, Jews are not asked to "love thine enemies" or to "turn the other cheek." At least last time I checked, our argument against the latter was that it was likely to cause greater harm than good--it would "promote injustice," according to one Conservative theologian (I'd provide a name & citation, but I'm on the other side of the country from the book in question). We generally interpret "an eye for an eye" negatively, as a limit on violence: the punishment must fit the crime exactly. Which means that any Christian who thinks that you can cite "an eye for an eye" as a justification for flattening Afghanistan is, um, off base.

(This is not, of course, to argue that we Jews don't have the equivalents of Falwell and Robertson, because we do. There must be some religion that doesn't spawn fundamentalists, but I'm not sure what it could be. Are there fundamentalist Buddhists?)
posted by thomas j wise at 3:52 PM on September 20, 2001


why is it that we never see Pat sit down with muslims who are perfectly happy being... muslims?

just wondering
posted by tsarfan at 3:55 PM on September 20, 2001


well tsarfan...i think they get melted by hot jesus into christians from what i understand, so an interview with pat would convert them and then there would be no point to it i guess. Probably a chemist or phyicist could explain better. I need more caffiene i think. Lots more. Lots lots more. Fun thread though. made for a good thursday.
posted by th3ph17 at 4:03 PM on September 20, 2001


Incidently, for those who don't know, the Bible keeps the Old Testament as a reference and history for the events of the New Testament.

The Bible be the Bible be the Bible. If Christians don't agree with the OT, they should remove it from the book. Or at least include a disclaimer in between: "All that stuff you just read, the jew stuff, just pretend that didn't happen."
posted by jpoulos at 4:37 PM on September 20, 2001


Robertson: It was the love of Jesus that just melted you?

Safa: It did. It broke me.


Obviously, he means that participating in Robertson's brand of Christianity(TM) BROKE him financially.
posted by rushmc at 4:38 PM on September 20, 2001


Are there fundamentalist Buddhists?

Aye. They set themselves on fire in the street to protest war.
posted by rushmc at 4:39 PM on September 20, 2001


I wasn't trying to say that Christianity is a stupid or violent religion. I leave that, of course, to the individual. Because if someone tells you what to believe, demands it of you, then it isn't faith. Not really. You should come to (or away from) God not because of a book, or because of what I or anyone else tells you, but because of what you know in your heart to be true, whatever that is.

What I was pointing out, however, is that certain specific passages in the Bible or Koran -- or any text, religious or otherwise -- when read alone and taken out of context, as Robertson did, can be spun in any direction you like. They can be misinterpreted to mean anything. They could even seem to support theories as ludicrous as that all Muslims are inherently violent or that all Christians live and die by the sword.

I could just as easily have taken a passage from the New Testament, and I could just as easily have quoted from the New International as from the King James. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus tells his disciples, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Well now, that could be interpreted to mean that Christians have a predilection towards violence, that it is an inherently violent faith, and that we should try to help these poor benighted souls convert to something safer, something more humane. But let's be honest: whatever you may think about Christianity and its checkered past, condemning it because of one interpretation of one particular passage is just wrong.

Same with Islam. I wish Pat Robertson would learn that.
posted by UnReality at 6:48 PM on September 20, 2001


I understand your point, though I think that you (and others) are MUCH too quick to dismiss biblical passages that you find awkward or difficult to justify as "misinterpreted." Where interpretation is required, ALL interpretations are suspect. Even yours.

but because of what you know in your heart to be true

FYI, some of us think with our heads. It's an important distinction.
posted by rushmc at 7:31 PM on September 20, 2001


[john's heart]: "In with the old blood, out with the new blood, in with the old blood, out with the new blood...."
posted by jpoulos at 8:29 PM on September 20, 2001


In response to an assertion that Robertson's ex-Muslim Reza Safa made in passing: Iraq started the Iran-Iraq War by invading Iran on 22 Sept 1980, and not the other way around. It's pretty sad that this guy resorts to falsifying history for propaganda purposes, especially when the origins of the war are not widely known among ordinary Americans; a lot of people are going to believe him wihtout even thinking about it, because it flies right under the radar.
H
posted by skoosh at 9:31 PM on September 20, 2001


wihtout = without (doh)
posted by skoosh at 9:32 PM on September 20, 2001


And if you want to believe Christianity is a stupid religion, you can spin the facts in such a way that it looks like your thesis is correct. You guys are doing the same thing.

I personally don't believe Christianity is a stupid religion, but I do believe whole heartedly that Pat and the Gang do their very best to make it look pretty asinine. Faith is a wonderful thing, but zealotry is always fraught with danger.
posted by DarkWood at 11:54 PM on September 20, 2001


ALL interpretations are suspect. Even yours.

I thought this was what I was saying. A lot of blood was spilled by and for God in the Bible, but, for the record, I don't believe Christianity is inherently violent. I don't shy away from awkward or difficult passages. And I don't believe that a passage like "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" is meant to encourage violence. I don't think you can take one interpretation of one passage and come up with a definitive conclusion.

That is what Pat Robertson did, what he usually does. We look at the evidence before we theorize for a reason. And while I think that evidence, especially in matters of faith, has to be interpreted, I don't think you should call Islam or Christianity inherently violent without looking at them in their entirety. I don't think Pat's ever done that. If he had, I think he'd realize his theories are wrong.
posted by UnReality at 7:58 AM on September 21, 2001


« Older The emotional toll...  |  What's your favorite type of l... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments