Pat Robertson could blame his own big mouth for Islamic Zeal and be just as correct.

And don't you think they'd be satisfied with most of the mideast? They don't have to dominate the world, do they? I'm sure such a large presence from US on their turf doesn't make them sleep much better at night, either.

I'm concerned about backlash from the radicals. We are coming up on 60 years of growing animosity from the Muslim world, and the countless defeats and setbacks they've suffered at the hands of Israeli and western coalition forces have fueled the ire of three generations of Muslim youth. The more marginalized and exploited they feel, the more radical they become. The more we fight terror, the more it spreads.

Pat Robertson sits up there fanning the flames, egging them on.

He is on a downward spiral,if anyone better watch what he says it's him,acting like a Christian and his off the wall remarks

I would venture to guess that he was refering to Islamic terrorism, and their stated intent to form, on a global scale, an Islamic nation state ruled by Islamic law. Pat Robertson is an extremist, 'tis true, but in this case oddly enough he's correct.

"[T]he goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination."

Hum. . . that sounds like Christianity one time in history.

Anyway I imagine that world domination can be achieve in many ways without the religious intonation.

But as everything in relation with Pat, his is becoming senile and his days are getting shorter in this life.

Robertson is correct and from what I have seen I have no interest in living in what is now considered Islamic countries. I'm not even sure that Islam as it is practiced is anything close to what it should be btw.

Nice to see that so many with the 'right' to say what they think, want to knock the system that gives them that right. I'm hoping that airfare to the middle east isn't that expensive yet.

It definately sounds like Christianity once in history. In colonial times Christian missionaries wanted everybody to repent to christianity or die. What's the difference?

Btw... In the mean time the bankers continue to dominate the world as it is, and let everyone else live in ignorance of that... Here's laughing at you kid.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Robertson is correct and from what I have seen I have no interest in living in what is now considered Islamic countries. I'm not even sure that Islam as it is practiced is anything close to what it should be btw.

Nice to see that so many with the 'right' to say what they think, want to knock the system that gives them that right. I'm hoping that airfare to the middle east isn't that expensive yet.

Good points.

I am not a Christian but if the Islamic fundamentalists had their way, none of us would have any freedom to choose our faith, religion, or philosophy (including secular humanism which is highly represented in this forum) because we would all be forced to live in an Islamic theocracy that is likened to the one currently ruling Iran

Many in the west don't realize how good they have it when compared to living under an Islamic theocratic regime. In which case, this very forum would be closed by the government and we would have no rights whatsoever for free speech.

Let's all try to remember this.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Many in the west don't realize how good they have it when compared to living under an Islamic theocratic regime.

I don't think any non-religious person would want to live in a theocratic regime, Muslim or otherwise. Would you want to live in a Christian theocracy?

How about we try to remember this...keep government secular.

hmmmm....wonder if it's the same demons that are responsible for his zeal??

first, I don't think that the radical muslims want to conquer the whole world, maybe I am wrong, but I think it is more like taking back all that was once theirs, which is still a heck of alot of territory. But........they'd be nuts to try to take the US...we'd corrupt their fundlementalist belief system to the point of no return.

but really, I think there is really a rather easy way of disarming them......quit oppressing them. just leave the middle east, let them live however they like, and well, sooner of later, the message of the radicals will seem not so relevant to the average muslim, if they are not being oppressed their is no reason to rise up, and if, well, it's the radicals that are doing the oppressing, they will rise up against them.

unfortunately, there's that small issue called oil....



[edit on 14-3-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't think any non-religious person would want to live in a theocratic regime, Muslim or otherwise. Would you want to live in a Christian theocracy?

How about we try to remember this...keep government secular.

We don't live in a Christian theocracy, or any other theocracy for that matter. However, secularism is on the rise and will eventually take over the government completely in values and focus, which I believe is what you and many others want to happen.

If you consider the west to be under a Christian theocracy, I have to disagree with you. Certainly, there is a clash of values between the secular humanists and Christians, but we still live in a relatively free society next to the theocratic regime of Iran.

Originally posted by Paul_RichardIf you consider the west to be under a Christian theocracy, I have to disagree with you. Certainly, there is a clash of values between the secular humanists and Christians, but we still live in a relatively free society next to the theocratic regime of Iran.

I never said anything about "the West" being a theocracy. I'm not playing this "you're either with us or against us game" with you. My point was that there is no good theocracy, whether it be Christian, Islamic, Wiccan, Hindu, etc. The way you make yourself sound, you probably would like a Christian theocracy.

As it is, the US and many other Western countries are based off Judeo-Christian, Romanic principles, which is part of who I am and who you probably are. There is difference between this and a Christian theocracy where all laws must have a Biblical basis before they are put into effect. And if it is a Christian theocracy you are looking for, the entire bank system will have to come crashing down. Wait, that doesn't sound like a bad idea now that I think about it. Too bad, most of these self-described Christian politicians just use Christian evangelism as a tool, and would never dream about having a theocratic economic policy.

As stated, I'm not a Christian and we do not live in a theocracy of ANY kind.

Do I want to live in a theocracy?

No.

I actually prefer a spiritual meritocracy.

Decidedly different than a theocracy, that is a topic for another thread.

What I am against is people who rule without principle. Most people without a religious focus and fear of God have no desire to live by The Golden Rule - which is found in all the world's major religions. Very few are spiritual without being religious. That's the problem. When rulers have no principle, the government becomes largely corrupt, unstable and ultimately disintegrates into anarchy and chaos. Just as it did in ancient Rome.

Which I suppose would make the anarchists pleased.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

hey, if it was a christian theocracy....ummm......our homes would be ours in 7 years, regardless of how much we paid on them, every 7 years, there's a year of jubilee, the slaves are allowed to go free, the debts are forgiven...

I say, if we are gonna put any of the beliefs of the judeo-christian philosophy into our legal system, we start with this one, just balance out all the books. what the heck, most people, businesses, and governments own so much now they'll never be able to repay it anyways.

------------------------------------------------
"What I am against is people who rule without principle. Most people without a religious focus and fear of God have no desire to live by The Golden Rule "
-------------------------------------------------

there's one problem with what you are saying. this weren't any better when they were religious and had a fear of God.

the golden rule was ignored then also.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar
------------------------------------------------
"What I am against is people who rule without principle. Most people without a religious focus and fear of God have no desire to live by The Golden Rule "
-------------------------------------------------

there's one problem with what you are saying. this weren't any better when they were religious and had a fear of God.

the golden rule was ignored then also.

You describe a classic example of the hypocrisy pertaining to those who are religious but who are not spiritually focused.

For most, when there is a belief in God or a higher power, there also tends to be a belief that one is ultimately held accountable for one's actions. When there is no belief of this nature, there is no inherent accountability and no need to strive to live by The Golden Rule.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Btw... In the mean time the bankers continue to dominate the world as it is, and let everyone else live in ignorance of that... Here's laughing at you kid.

I was going to said Free interprised by the elite but you got the right term Bankers or may I said the the world bank.

Yes our world is already under domination of what only means the The people with power to control our money

BTW is many in the US that would love to institute a new A new nation under the direction of Christianity as our national religion

But far from the kind of Christianity that tells to love thee neighbors

While promoting death by stoning for deviants.

Who does he blame for the craziness happening right in front of his eyes, sea monkeys?

Why is always the Islamist and not some other monkeys?

Originally posted by seagull
I would venture to guess that he was refering to Islamic terrorism, and their stated intent to form, on a global scale, an Islamic nation state ruled by Islamic law. Pat Robertson is an extremist, 'tis true, but in this case oddly enough he's correct.

I have to agree with Seagull; Robertson is indeed an extremist and normally I don't agree with Mr. Robertson but in this case referencing Islamic terrorism he is correct.
In an ideal leaders either of industry, banking or political would abide by the highest of ethics. However, we don't live in an ideal world where the Golden Rule is applied therefore I must also agree with Paul_Richard when he states that often religious people aren't always spirtually focused or as I like to say proof that you can be a man or woman of God but not a Godly man or woman.
I have absolutely no desire to live in a country that is ruled by a specific religion be it Christianity, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. We here in the west are extremely lucky to be able to choose how we wish to believe and what life style to pursue and to speak our minds whether our governments like it or not.

First off while i agree with the quoted statment posted by Robertson concerning world domination i would also like to add that Robertson is an idiot plan and simple. He's a bitter unintelligent money hungry old man that has a huge bug up his butt.

I'm a christian and that guy does not speak for me. and i get that america is full of alot of christians that are fanatical and fundemental, but not all of us are that way.

So instead of bashing christianity whenever something negetive about islam comes up why dont we just talk about the subject at hand. Just because at one point in history there were some power hungry people that wanted their way of thinking to be dominant throughout the whole world doesnt mean that Christianity in and of itself was that way.

The majority of Islamic people in the Middle east yes, want world domination. but not every single one in the whole entire world.

I'm not making excuses for either side here...all forms of thought whether it be religious or scientific have bread people that are full of themselves and want everybody to be just like them. and those doctrines and people who suggest that people should be FORCED to believe something whether it be true or not are just egomaniacle idiots.

As far as i am concerned freedom of belief is a God given right. you are supposed to make a choice, placing fear in peoples hearts so they believe something is not supposed to be apart of the process.


Pat robertson is a person who makes uneducated blanket statments. He said that the bible was complete and put together by the begining of the 1st century...that is historically inaccurate and any educated individual would know that. But see most people of all schools of thought dont really take the time to study all the before hand crap so they know what the heck is going on. I have friends that are evolutionists and yet have never read any of darwins work, its kind of like "wow you really studied that didnt ya" lol. These are the types of people that pat robertson prays apon.

Does islam have a big problem at the moment? absolutely
Should we make pat robertson our spokes person for these problems? Hell no

Ok there is my 2 cents

Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]