Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 03-19-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dirty Dog
Sounds to me like he endorses the Seperation of Any Religion Other Than Christianity and State.

And when push comes to shove, I'm sure that it will be the Separation of Every Non-Pat-Robertson Sect and State.

Shake · 03-20-2003, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dirty Dog
Sounds to me like he endorses the Seperation of Any Religion Other Than Christianity and State.

Dirty Dog

Ha ha! That was my first thought when I read that, too!

I think GD and Lpetrich have it right as well!

He (PR) probably advocates C-SS anywhere except the US!

Peregrine · 03-20-2003, 02:23 PM

A couple years ago, Pat came out in favor of abortion -- for the Chinese.

Strawberry · 03-20-2003, 02:43 PM

Well, he's right, there should be separation of church and state in Iraq. But what he doesn't realize is that Iraq's current fundy-Islamic, hate-breeding condition stems from its government being tied to religion, which is *exactly what would happen to the U.S. if it became a theocracy.*

Irony is right.

Toto · 03-20-2003, 02:48 PM

Iraq was actually a secular state (or what passes for a secular state in the Islamic world) before the Gulf War. But it had degraded into more of an Islamic state as Hussain has looked for allies among his neighbors.

theyeti · 03-20-2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

�The thing that the president of the United States has got to keep in mind is, under the Ba�ath party, Iraq was a so-called secular state. That's why many of the Islamic nations don't like [Saddam Hussein]. If the United States tries nation building, it's got to [have] at the very top of its agenda a separation of church and state. There has to be a secular state in there and not an Islamic state. If they let an open vote, and let the Shi�ites for example take a vote, they will probably have the majority, and [under] one-man one-vote will say, we'll go in for shariah, and the next thing you know, you've got a mini-Iran in there.�

This was actually the rationale for allowing Saddam to remain in power after the first Gulf war. (That is, it's the reason we deliberately let the revolt fail.) The same thing has the potential for happening this time, unless we either control the Iraqi government directly, or write a Constitution for them that's nearly impossible to change. And then make them follow it.

Robertson doesn't have his head completely up his ass on this one. It's just that he's thinking solely in terms of America's interests, instead of seeing the principle of the matter. Robertson and his ilk just aren't principled people. They only adhere to any given principle so long as they have something to gain from it.

theyeti

Grumpy · 03-21-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrotherMan
I think he just doesn't want the Muslims in charge over there.

It's bad enough that his pal Charles Taylor, the president of Liberia, used government money to sponsor pilgrimages to Mecca. This appears to have been done to curry favor with Liberia's Muslim minority, who feel oppressed by Christians. Like when five mosques were burned down and the authorities didn't prosecute anybody.

Pat Robertson's responsibility for such actions is, of course, purely tangential.

sandlewood · 03-22-2003, 03:27 PM

I don't know how this nation-building stuff works, but I would think that it isn't up to us anyway. Shouldn't we let the Iraqi people decide? The idea isn't to go in there and force our own type of government on them, but to let them set up the kind of government they want.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2003, 02:23 PM	#13
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	A couple years ago, Pat came out in favor of abortion -- for the Chinese.

03-20-2003, 02:43 PM	#14
Strawberry Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA/Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 627	Well, he's right, there should be separation of church and state in Iraq. But what he doesn't realize is that Iraq's current fundy-Islamic, hate-breeding condition stems from its government being tied to religion, which is exactly what would happen to the U.S. if it became a theocracy. Irony is right.

03-20-2003, 02:48 PM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Iraq was actually a secular state (or what passes for a secular state in the Islamic world) before the Gulf War. But it had degraded into more of an Islamic state as Hussain has looked for allies among his neighbors.

03-22-2003, 03:27 PM	#18
sandlewood Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 264	I don't know how this nation-building stuff works, but I would think that it isn't up to us anyway. Shouldn't we let the Iraqi people decide? The idea isn't to go in there and force our own type of government on them, but to let them set up the kind of government they want.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.