Robertson: Islam “Satanic”

Ace of Spades HQ comments:

I’ve slapped around Pat for saying foolish things before. I don’t think this is foolish at all.Now, being agnostic, I’m not sure about this God chap I hear so much about, and I’m much less a believer in Satan.

But I’ve used the word “satanic” in this connection before, myself. More metaphorically than Pat seems to use it — I’m guessing he thinks that Islamism is authored by and encouraged by the Fallen Angel — but it’s apt whatever your beliefs.

An religion that venerates killers and exalts in mayhem and blood and death is, metaphorically or literally, your choice, satanic (or Satanic). I don’t even think it’s debatable.

Although I don’t think I have ever used the word ’satanic’ myself, I mostly agree with Ace on this.

Comments

  1. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Tell me - is Judaism “satanic” as well?

    Posted 14 Mar 2006 at 8:38 pm

  2. Michael The Thumper wrote:

    Bill:

    No.

    Were you being funny, or was that a dumb question? I really can’t tell.

    Posted 14 Mar 2006 at 9:59 pm

  3. Michael The Thumper wrote:

    Perhaps I should elaborate.

    I don’t have much regard for Pat Robertson, but I do recognize that anyone who comes close to orthodox Christianity and to upholding the inerrancy of biblical authority (such as me and Pat), would recoil at the notion that Judaism is satanic. To the contrary, the history of the Jews is an integral chapter in God’s continuing revelation to all of us, and the Jews occupy a special place in his plan of redemption. Based on the apocalyptic passages of the bible, I fully expect that at the Restoration of Zion, the Remnant of Israel will march into the New Jerusalem at the head of the train (followed closely, I trust, by the Lutherans).

    Now, certainly all of this sounds like nonesense to you. My point is simply that neither Pat, nor I, nor anyone remotely like us would contemplate that Judaism is satanic.

    Most of us would immediately acknowledge that Islam is satanic. It’s really not even a matter to be debated. But we would say the same thing about the Mormons.

    Posted 14 Mar 2006 at 10:22 pm

  4. The Sanity Inspector wrote:

    Whatever, we’ve gotta be circumspect, because so many of them are allies. If we alienate the entire Muslim world, we’ve effectively lost the WOT.

    Posted 14 Mar 2006 at 10:42 pm

  5. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Were you being funny, or was that a dumb question? I really can’t tell.

    Neither. Islam, when certain of its teachings and edicts are followed to the letter (interestingly, others are contradictorily benevolent), venerates violence and destruction, fulfilling Ace’s agreement with the religion as “satanic.” Because, let’s face it, satan digs death and destruction.

    The Commissar agrees with Ace because he sees a significant public manifestation of Islam in the world (terror, anti-semitism and extremist violence) and detests it as evil irrationalism, following the consistent pattern of his more muted scorn for domestic religious irrationalism that isn’t violent, but anti-science.

    But labeling Islam as “the cause” of violence in destruction is like labeling “guns” the reason that people get killed. On its face, sure, the logic is sound - but simplistic and non-contextual. Because if guns didn’t exist, individuals would still pick up baseball bats and brain each other, and if Islam didn’t exist, a seething mass of uneducated, repressive cultures would still seethe and bubble and find an ideological outlet for their impotent rage and inferiority complex.

    The Old Testament (and to a lesser extent the New testament) is a book filled with all kinds of violent proscriptions and directives - things that by today’s standards, venerate violence, abuse and other “satanic” things. Things that have hiostorically been used to justify genocide, repression, conquest, domestic abuse.

    Only through the revision of the New Testament (still a slightly dodgy book in spots), other subsequent texts and edicts and the prism of era and culture have some of these horrible examples and directives been muted into the cuddly, friendly religion that you and most of the rest of the planet half-assedly follows. A cuddly version adapted to suit an infinite number of individual tastes and flavors of lifestyle in the 21st Century.

    So “no,” it’s not a funny comment nor a dumb one, it’s really a SUPER-DUPER INTELLIGENT comment that dense or self-interested people have a hard time understanding. Hope that helps.

    BTW - by the logic cited in this post, Christianity is “satanic.” And if pressed, I can shoot you the passages from the Bible that prove it.

    http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1086.htm

    Many people have been quoting the Quran out of context in an effort to show that Islam promotes violence. A recent op-ed piece by Cal Thomas is a high profile example.

    This is pure nonsense. Thomas and others doing this are taking selected passages and reading them completely out of context to support whatever argument they wish to make. I can do the same thing with the Bible.

    Here are some choice passages from the KJV Bible which when read in isolation makes the Bible appear to be a primer for evil:

    1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it’s OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

    2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

    3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

    4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

    5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.

    6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

    7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

    Context is important, of course, and many of these seeming cruelties disappear when read as such. However, this would not stop a Christian terrorist from interpreting the Bible in a manner necessary to concoct a religious justification for unspeakable horrors, as Pope Urban II did, for example, when he preached the First Crusade in 1095 or as many American preachers did when they used Leviticus to defend slavery.

    Political and religious extremists have abused Islamic, Jewish, or Christian scriptures continuously throughout history. Cal Thomas, a man who claims to be Christian, would do well to learn something of his own faith s scriptures and history before accusing Islam s Quran of promoting violence.

    Posted 15 Mar 2006 at 12:53 pm

  6. commissar wrote:

    Bill,

    “Because if guns didn’t exist, individuals would still pick up baseball bats and brain each other, and if Islam didn’t exist, a seething mass of uneducated, repressive cultures would still seethe and bubble and find an ideological outlet for their impotent rage and inferiority complex.”

    Fair enough. Good point.

    Posted 15 Mar 2006 at 1:04 pm

  7. BloodSpite wrote:

    who was it that said the last world war would be fought with sticks and stones?

    Einstein?

    Posted 15 Mar 2006 at 2:49 pm

  8. Michael the Thumper wrote:

    Bill:

    I stand corrected. No argument from me that the OT contains all kinds of murder and mayhem done at the behest of God (including attacks against Israel by, for example, Assyria and Babylon, to punish their idolatry). I agree with you (and the commissar) that, by Ace’s reasoning, historic Judaism might fairly be considered satanic.

    I just misunderstood the direction of your question; I took your comment as a suggestion that Pat Robertson might consider Judaism as satanic, which struck me a preposterous. It escaped me that your question was directed at the Commissar.

    Posted 15 Mar 2006 at 4:00 pm

  9. Michael the Thumper wrote:

    or as many American preachers did when they used Leviticus to defend slavery..

    They had better material than Leviticus — St. Paul sending a runaway slave back to its master, for example.

    All kinds of mischief can occur when sacred texts get mined for quotes to be taken out of context. I am also deeply suspicious of those who use this technique to “educate” us about Islam.

    Posted 15 Mar 2006 at 4:07 pm

  10. Michael the Thumper wrote:

    To correct a couple of Bill’s statements regarding the NT passages he cites:

    In Mark 7:10 (not 9) Jesus is referring to OT law, and the death penalty is prescribed for “cursing” your parents (a horror in the culture of the time), not, as Bill says, for merely being “disobedient.”

    Bill has completely mischaracterized Luke 19:22-27. Jesus is telling a parable, i.e., a story that is obviously fictional and intended to illustrate a point. The text referred to by Bill is spoken by the “man of noble birth” who is a key figure in the story, not by Jesus himself. This character says “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me.” The meaning is unclear; this could be an allegory for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., or an allegory for the ultimate destruction of all unbelievers following the Second Coming. In any event, even taken out of context no one could construe this passage as a command by Jesus to kill those who refuse to be ruled by him. Nor has anyone, so far as I know.

    Posted 15 Mar 2006 at 5:33 pm

« Paging William Wallace
Feingold’s Censure Resolution »