Robertson named "Worst Person" for claiming "Islam is not a religion"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann named Pat Robertson the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for stating: "I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it's a political system meant on -- bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world into their way of thinking."
During the April 10 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Pat Robertson the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, stating: "I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it's a political system meant on -- bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world into their way of thinking." Of Robertson's comments, Olbermann asserted: "Whatever your views about Islam or religion in general, just think about this for a second. This is from a guy heading up a giant corporation devoted to eliminating science from schools, eliminating freedom of choice for women, who himself ran for president, and who said that 9-11 was the result of people not abiding by his political system -- I'm sorry, it was the result of people not abiding by his religious beliefs."
From the April 10 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But our winner, Pat Robertson. Goes on his TV network and says, "I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it's a political system meant on -- bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world into their way of thinking."
Whatever your views about Islam or religion in general, just think about this for a second. This is from a guy heading up a giant corporation devoted to eliminating science from schools, eliminating freedom of choice for women, who himself ran for president, and who said that 9-11 was the result of people not abiding by his political system -- I'm sorry, it was the result of not abiding by his religious beliefs.
Pat Robertson -- today's "Worst Person in the World."
In his same childish segment, he also attached Elton John for daring to support Hillary Clinton. He has in even recent weeks gone after Governor Rendell for daring to say that FOX has treated Hillary so fairly compared to MSNBC and other networks.
Sorry i said attached and meant ATTACKED.
Glad you cleared that up, Sue. I was wonder what Keith had attached Elton John to, and what kind of glue he used. :-)
Yeah & Keith masquerades as someone who thinks he's relevant.
Any credibility this guy had evaporated during this primary season.
Jeter
Absolutely, He has lost all credibility. The hate toward Senator Clinton has been stunning. And I am supporting Obama, but night after night that network has clearly gone after her.
He has in even recent weeks gone after Governor Rendell for daring to say that FOX has treated Hillary so fairly compared to MSNBC and other networks.
Considering how FOX has treated the Democrats for the last 7 years Keith was right IMO to chew Rendell a new a**hole for saying that crap!
Sorry Sue but it's time I declare, I LOVE KEITH!!!!
If you love Keith More power to you.
Governor Rendell is a good man, and should be allowed his opinion without vile hate from Keithy.
I want to be Pearl's dog. She can rub my belly anytime!
Oops, that was my outside voice again...
But I love Pearlene in a much more manly way than all of you combined.
Col, THAT was supposed to be our secret remember. ;-)
Mary, WZ and King, much love to all of you!!!
It's Friday and I'm off for lunch, wine and bingo!
Don't worry about me, Pearlene. I'm way to manly to need your love.
**sniffling in corner**
There should be no argument as to WITH.
It's here because Pat Robertson is not only wrong, he's the Worst Person in the World.
Islam IS a relgion AND a dessert topping.
Oh, and it's a very peaceful religion too.
This is from a guy heading up a giant corporation devoted to eliminating science from schools,
Ah, KO and his comical exaggerations while pretending to be a "journalist"!
So CBN has tried to remove all teaching of physics from schools??
Are they in agreement that the physical universe in more than 13 billion years old?
How does CBN explain how we got to be at this place and this time in the physical universe?
There are 71 references to physics on the CBN website (cbn.com), but I do not see anything about eliminating the instruction of physics.
For their other beliefs, check out the website yourself. I am not a member of their religion, just someone who hates to see inaccurate journalism.
Some of you liberals are nothing if not predictable; your heroes, like Keith, get such a wide latitude of word parsing, semantic slipperyness, and interpretation of what they "mean", or what they don't "mean", even in the face of black and white evidence before your very eyes.......or it's just "nit-picking" to point out liberals double standards, or an out and out lie as Olbermann offers up this gem about Robertson "devoted to eliminating science from schools", his exact words, but let the explanations and rationalizations begin that he didn't mean all science, he just forgot to include that irrelevant little disclaimer...haha.
Yet, let a rightwinger utter one word you find objectionable and it's skewered and dissected for some hideous motive six ways to Sunday, usually highlighted here to jumpstart the discussion.
Gotta love it......
. . . So, what's the problem ?
Hmmmm, reminds me of someone else will jump through rhetorical hoops of fire and perform amazing acts of semantic contortion to deny the existence of any such thing as conservative misinformation and turn any debate into a silly game of Lucy and the football, all the while claiming to be extremely non-partisan.
Good thing there's nobody like that here.
"to eliminating science"
Show me how you can "eliminate" part of something!
Ask the good Colonel.
By the same method you would eliminate all of it, just more focused.For example, I could eliminate people from my contact list on my computer, yet there could still be people on that list.
Geez, are you guys starting your weekend early?
I could eliminate people from my contact list on my computer
I would think that if you eliminated people from your contact list, you would have businesses and organizations left, maybe, but no people.
If you eliminate porn from your computer, is there any left on it?
By George, I think he got it. Much quicker than Tommy, MoSho.
(Just kidding, Tommy, I know you get it, I just like you cuz you'll keep trying to pretend you don't get it)
You can check cbn.com to see exactly what they want to do.
I believe they are trying to get Intelligent Design taught as a co-equal to Darwinnian evolution. If so they are not trying to "eliminate" anything.
Robertson is a TV evangelist for a religion to which I do not belong. My concern is KO's exaggeration, not the specifics of what a representative of another religion thinks.
Rick, I am not supporting the mandates you suggest. Pat Robertson has venues for sharing his beliefs including a program on basic cable. A mandate to teach evolution in churches--you are kidding, aren't you?
As I said before, the money quote is "devoted to eliminating science from schools", a KO exaggeration of what Robertson is attempting with CBN.
"I believe they are trying to get Intelligent Design taught as a co-equal to Darwinnian evolution. If so they are not trying to "eliminate" anything."
Do you actually think ID is science? It's not, by definition. It would seem obvious that equating one to the other would be to eliminate scientific standards.
Show me how you can "eliminate" part of something!
Have you ever been constipated?
A few small points.
Olbermann says Robertson wants to eliminate science from schools. Can anyone show me where Robertson wants to eliminate science from schools?
Robertson in the same speech said, " Don't ask why did it happen. It happened because people are evil." Why didn't Olbermann include that?
I agree. Liberals-2008, Conservatives-1492.
Not a God that I'd want to have anything to do with.
Prince,
Some of us believe God gave us free wills too. We can either choose to do what is right or choose the opposite.
Robertson, from what I gather, believes that God interacts to reward or punish people here on earth depending on how well the people follow God's laws. I'm not saying I agree with his beliefs in this regard, I am simply pointing them out. (Of course I could be wrong.)
Some of us believe God gave us free wills too.
Perhaps, but now lawyers charge a bundle to draw them up.
I would bet that he does indeed want to get "Creation Science" to replace texbooks in the public & private schools. (That is, the earth is only 4 or 5 thousand years old, species didn't evolve, etc.)
Mary,
I am no fan of Robertson.
Can you link anywhere where Robertson says the earth is 6,000 years old?
Here is a link that gives a pretty good idea of Robertson's ideology:
https://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/297869.aspx
"...the Bible says that sin preceded death, whereas evolution implies that death preceded sin. The troubled theory claims that "prehistoric life" existed hundreds of millions of years ago - well before Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden some 6,000 to 7,000 years ago."
According to the Judeo-Christian literal interpretation of Genesis, Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. Do the math. It is clear that Robertson not only believes the Earth is 6000 to 7000 years old, but he actually believes that religious belief deserves equal footing in science classrooms. Just scary.
Secondly, Robertson's organization calls evolution "troubled" because it presumes to go back in time to before the world even existed according to Robertson's beliefs. That is what we are dealing with here.
Conservative Christian television evangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them yesterday not to be surprised if disaster struck. "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show, "The 700 Club." "And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said
Pat Robertson is a certified NUT!
So CBN has tried to remove all teaching of physics from schools?? missourishowme
Baby steps. First question eveolution. Then when something in physics contridicts their beliefs, they'll go after that too.
Great conspiracy theory. :-)
The absence of proof must prove it eh?
The first link I went to was a CBN site which had an anti-evolution article and links to at least five other articles suggesting that it's wrong to teach evolution.
You're usually better than this AA.
Saying it's wrong to teach evolution is hardly the same thing as a devotion to eliminate science from schools.
Worrier, You're better than that.
Worrier, Thanks for the left handed compliment.
Tommy, Thanks for the rebuttal.
*I totally negate above prayer and renounce all nasty bits.
You don't see a problem with the attacks on science from the religious right?
What about earth science, that is part of science, isn't it?
Or was Keith, the little darling, just using hyperbole to make a point?
Here is a healthy dose of Robertson's organization's view of Earth Science:
"Secular geologists say it dates back millions of years. Try telling that to Tom Vail. He runs Canyon Ministries. It's part whitewater fun, part Bible lesson.
Vail teaches that the Canyon isn't millions of years old. Rather, it was formed by Noah's flood 4,500 years ago.
He's written a book about it called Grand Canyon: A Different View. It's being sold in the Grand Canyon bookstore. Inside are stunning photographs and interviews with dozens of scientists who back up the creationist view of the canyon.
"What we see in the Grand Canyon really does support what we read in God's word,” Vail asserts.
http://www.cbn.com/media/browse_videos_info.aspx?s=/vod/DBR11
Tommy, these guys are nuts. You have no idea how messed up they are.
Maybe you 2 cute guys could get a room?
Anyway, my sweet Julia would tell you both that I'm the cutest one here :-)
I still think the Colonel has us all beat with his rugged manliness though.
Aw King you're darn cute too. In fact I don't think it would be an exaggeration to state that this forum has the cutest posters on the internet.
As far as the Colonel's alleged rugged manliness goes, well that might be more myth than fact ;-)
Well Colonel Beach if you resemble both Costanza & Cheney, two of the most ruggedly handsome men on the planet, then I'd have to admit that you must indeed be the most ruggedly handsome poster at MMFA.
I think I'd rather be cute ;-)
Saying it's wrong to teach evolution is hardly the same thing as a devotion to eliminate science from schools.
Saying that churches should teach the alternate theory that jesus is not the son of god is hardly the same thing as a devotion to eliminate religion from churches.
Science has always been an enemy to religion. As our understanding of the world increases religion will continue to make itself more and more irrelevant.
worrier,
Those links include thousands that just have the word evolution in them.
Not trying to be over zealous but I think you should keep evolution out of your search. ;-)
Well, he IS a creationist. Likely a young earth, since Big Bang skepticism is right there with evolution denialism.
Now Keith did say "science", which is pretty broad, but considering creationists oppose any science that appears to contradict their theology, he was quite correct. Science isn't science unless its free from religious dogma.
Being a (young earth) creationist requires you to discredit practically all fields of science, especially physics and biology. Both of them provide us with billions of years of history which depends on scientific formulations that creationists have no option but to object to, because they cannot handle the history.
Now Keith did say "science", which is pretty broad
Bingo! So broad it is wrong. I would like to track what Robertson and others are saying and doing, and exaggerations like this KO one disappoint me. So the next time I hear KO say that Robertson said xx, will it mean he really said it, or that he said something else much milder?
Attn; MMFA.
Next time you post Keith's words verbatim I suggest you check them more carefully for accuracy and avoid reprinting his "untruths" - think of all the headaches you'd save his defenders here.
Tommy,
Next thing you know, the progressives will look at MMFA quoting KO and ask, "Why is this here?"
You and Tommy seem to be a little naive as to the ramifications of teaching our school children that the Earth is merely six or seven thousand years old. I can hardly think of a major scientific field of study that can reconsile itself to that ludicrous proposition.
Physics:Carbon-14 dating would have to be wrong. Astronomy: The age of the Universe would be wrong. Electro-magnetsm: the speed of light would have to be wrong. Distant planets would necessarily have to exist before Genesis - which is not possible according to Genesis literalism. Geology, Thermodynamics, Oceanography, Chemistry and on and on - almost everything we know about biology (including biological classification, DNA, botany, zoology, anthropology, virology, bacteriology, etymology, immunology) would be invalidated by that idea. The real question is what major part of science if any would not be eliminated or otherwise harmed if Robertson had his way.
Sorry, but it looks more like Olby is correct here.
So broad it is wrong.
I don't think you've got a case there.If I tell you I'm eating fruit, and I'm eating a peach, that's true. If I tell you I'm eating an apple, and I'm eating a peach, that's wrong. I was too specific.
Col,
If I say "liberals aren't smart", would you be fine with me leaving out "some", or not qualifying it in some way? No doubt you would grant me the same leeway that you are to dear Keith here?
I would defend to the death your right to say it , Tommy. But back to an analagous example, if you were to scratch Janeane Garafalo and Mike Gravel off of your Xmas card list, you could say that you were eliminating liberals from your list, even if you still sent a card to Solon.
This is fun, I can't wait to see the next one.
I won't tell you what words to use when you (hypothetically)speak or write, Tommy. I hope you don't think the rest of the universe has to conform to your rules, do you?
Mrs Tommy: Honey, what are you doing?
Tommy: Taking out a percentage of/ a portion of/ some of the trash.That portion which was under the kitchen sink, but not the bathroom or office wastebaskets. I wouldn't want to create a false impression
Oh Colonel, you really had to go to the trash for that analogy. Ok, you get points for that, but sorry, you laid out the Christmas list one already and I ripped it apart, so how long will you keep returning to the well?
;)
And Colonel, I just don't understand your bud Keith at all, why do you think he feels the need to exaggerate or misrepresent or lie or whatever regarding the falsehood of "science" that he levies at Robertson in his WPITW silliness?
I mean come on, it isn't like anyone has to make stuff up about Robertson to show how nutty he is. I suggest Keith leave his blatant untruths to more worthy opponents who may really suffer at the hands of his fabrications, don't you?
Not a real big Olberman fan, so you'll have to ask him. I just like watching you "rip up" my arguments. I thought the Xmas card one would have been too clear for you to even twist, but I was wrong.
Again,
You eliminated garafalo and gravel.
They are liberals.
You eliminated liberals.
It's almost mathematical in its purity at this point, Tommy. But try another one, they're getting funnier.
"If I say "liberals aren't smart", would you be fine with me leaving out "some", or not qualifying it in some way?"
Your example dictates that you're making a general assessment. Saying "eliminate science" doesn't necessarily mean all science, though. You're comparing something that has only one possible interpretation with something that has multiple interpretations.
It's hard to top the "trash" comparison, but consider the phrase "rewriting history". When you hear someone described as doing that, do you imagine that person wants you to think Columbus landed in 1776, or that Lincoln was the first President? No, it's not rewriting all history, just a certain part that fits that person's agenda. It's the same with eliminating science. Why would anyone think fundamentalists would want to eliminate botany, chemistry, anatomy? It's specific to the agenda, obviously.
What Olbermann said was phrased appropriately and understandably. If you don't like "parsing", quit twisting words.
Wait, did I just accuse you of twisting all words? I'd better say "some words", so you don't get confused.
"rewriting history" is a very good analogy, Brab. I was trying to think of a better one, but was at work just going back when I had a chance.
Ultimately, they're all the same analogy, but the reason I like Tommy is he'll force you to keep simplifying it until he can't deny it. It's good practice, almost as good as somebody with an actual counterpoint, as he forces you to be as concise as possible.
An absolutely ridiculous analogy, the term "rewriting history" is poetic license, a phrase specific to what the writer is saying. "Eliminating science" is Keith's way to make Robertson even more nutty for his own WPITW idiocy. Why wouldn't a very clever wordsmith such as Olbermann be as exact as possible in his description then? Why generalize "science" if he was only referring to one, specifically?
He wanted to leave an impression in the worst possible light to make his point, and I still don't know why. He exaggerated and misled on purpose, to argue otherwise is just silly.
Robertson: ‘I’m with you, I couldn’t either because, you know, we could be looking at a solar day; we could be looking at a universal day; we could be looking at a galactic day. It doesn’t have to be one revolution of the Earth. And I mean, [as] you say, “nobody was there.” ’
ewe,
Did you read Pat Buchanan's column. He says Petraeus is laying out the argument for Bush to attack Iran.
If I remember correctly, (correct me if I am wrong,) according to Buchanan Patraeus, Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq through the Quds and Hezbolah.
I was reffering to Robertson, not Buchanan.
I'd say look our administrations efforts to link threats to Iraq, they are now are trying to work the same magic with Iran. Your example is,I think, part of that effort.
"This is from a guy heading up a giant corporation devoted to eliminating science from schools,"
Accurate description. Trying to replace science with religious dogma is indeed "eliminating science."
Robb,
Can you tell me how science explains whatever caused the big bang?
Are you happy?
I just hope the big guy isn't one of those candy assed bowlers like Obama.
I bet he's got great shoes and the sweetest bowling shirt too.
AA wrote:
>>Can you tell me how science explains whatever caused the big bang?
Science cannot, nor did science ever pretend it could. But your hypothetical question (which no one can answer, by the way), has nothing to do with Robbob's quote that "Trying to replace science with religious dogma is indeed 'eliminating science.'" Robertson seeks to eliminate the science of evolution.
Can you tell me how science explains whatever caused the big bang? - AA
There are a variety of different theories on that, each with its own evidences supporting it. You can find a layman's description of some of them here. I have little doubt that we will someday work out the details, but right now most of the best theories are only supported in bits and pieces experimentally. The main support remains mathematical because most of the potentially confirming experiments are still beyond our current technology.
The remaining problems with presenting the Big Bang to the public lie in misconceptions (the Big Bang wasn't actually an explosion) and the ignorant idea that not having all of the answers means that the answers we do have are not worth consideration.
Remember this is merely a wedge issue. The end game is to defeat secular authority, though the use of wedge issues.
OT, Can you grow a better mustach than Ismerelda Marcos Col?
It's hard to believe Media Matters uses Keith Olberman as a standard of balanced, unbiased media.
That's probably because they do nothing of the sort. But it's also hard to believe you have a brain in your head when you post ignorance like that.
And as to Pearlene1602, well, we had a brief date a while back and I have to confess I was a bit put off. First of all, "she" turned out to be a large and sweaty man with hair on his forehead! And the "1602" refers to her total measurements. Sorry, Pearlene, but I just couldn't allow Snoopy, the Col, and others be lead astray. We are all lonely and pitiful guys, especially the Republicans, and will fall for a pretty name. By the way, do you have the phone number of your bodyguard? She was kinda cute.
(Psssst! The "bodyguard" was Pearline)
Just trying to keep you from being even more embarrassed than you should have been by your description.