Yesterday, Robertson told “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that he didn’t believe Hindus or Muslims should serve as either federal judges or members of the President’s cabinet:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS … in your book The New World Order you wrote, “‘How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus or Muslims.’ My simple answer is, ‘yes, they are.'” Does that mean no Hindu and Muslim judges? PAT ROBERTSON Right now, I think people who feel that there should be a jihad against America, read what the Islamic people say. They divide the world into two spheres, Dar al Islam Dar al Harb. The Dar al Islam are those who’ve submitted to Islam, Dar al Harb are those who are in the land of war and they have said in the Koran there’s a war against all the infidels. So do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn’t. [cite]

Just one little thing stands in Robertson’s way. It’s called Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”

While he attacks Islam more often, Robertson intensely dislikes Hinduism as well. In 1995 he said Hinduism was demonic, and that Hindus ought not be allowed to enter the United States.

One might see Robertson’s decision to block Hindus and Muslims from the judiciary in terms of the importance he places upon it:

On Sunday morning, Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson told TV viewers nation-wide that the threat posed by liberal judges is “probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.” When an incredulous George Stephanopoulos asked if Robertson really believed that these judges posed “the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?,” he responded, “George, I really believe that.” [NYT Daily News]

Continue reading →

Last week, the media flip-flopped yet again on the issue of terrorism. When reporting on the three darker skinned guys recently arrested in the UK and accused of plotting a series of horrific bombings, the NYT, AP and other news outlets called the accused “terrorists.” However, when reporting on the recent plea bargain by Eric Rudolph, the T-word was absent from their coverage. The NYT only called Rudolph an “anti-abortion crusader and former soldier.” Reuters called him a “survivalist” and a “fugitive” but not a terrorist.

What gives? Might melanin and foreigness have anything to do with it?

Rudolph’s actions clearly met the US State Department definition of terrorism. His bombs “killed two people, wounded 120 others, and “terrorized” people in three states.” When he was caught, he had 250 lbs of dynamite stashed away, and a 25 lb bomb “filled with 20 pounds of screws as shrapnel” across the street from his next target.

His goal was political and intended to influence an audience … and the attacks were most definitely perpetrated against noncombatants by a non-state entity. The situation seems at least as clear-cut as many acts regularly labeled terrorism in the media.[cite]

Not only was Rudolph a terrorist, but he was a terrorist who justified his actions based on his religious beliefs. He was a member of an extremist religious group and cited a religion as the central reason for his attacks when he made his statement to the feds. After most of the bombings, letters came from the “Army of God” saying things like:

We declare and will wage total war on the ungodly communist regime in New York and your legaslative bureaucratic lackey’s in Washington. It is you who are responsible and preside over the murder of children and issue the policy of ungodly preversion thats destroying our people. [cite]

While the US government (to its credit) clearly calls Rudolph a terrorist, it may not be prosecuting him as vigorously as it does other terrorism suspects:

Curiously, the Justice Department allowed Mr. Rudolph to plead guilty and avoid the death sentence that in other circumstances the feds have been quite energetic in pursuing. The official explanation was that a trial and a death sentence would have made a “martyr” of this man, who as a high-profile fugitive for five years eluded a giant manhunt and became something of a folk hero in rural Appalachia…. Maybe the prosecutors thought they couldn’t get him and so opted for an easy plea. But there are powerful people for whom the spectacle of an unrepentant murderer for the unborn, a clean-cut movie star handsome Christian terrorist, posed political problems. Better to defend life in the abstract, keep the focus on the enemy at the gates and keep skeletons like Eric Rudolph locked up in the closet.[cite]

Continue reading →