This thread is essentially about the terrible disaster that occurred in Haiti but I'm going to approach it from a different angle, so bear with me. Thread upon thread in this forum bombard us with examples of how fundamentalist Muslims view the West as a great "Devil" that needs to be changed for the better, and how dangerous these kinds of views are. Well here's Pat Robinson being allowed airtime in the good ol' "US of A", explaining that he thinks the earthquake in Haiti is the direct result of Haitians making a pact with the Devil in order to free themselves from French rule...
This man is a deluded extremist who believes an evil mythical deity is responsible for a natural disaster (the kind of natural disaster that has been occurring since at least the beginning of recorded human history). This man's bile is no less insulting, and no less dangerous, than the venomous rhetoric that is spewed out in extremist mosques around the world. One might say it is less dangerous because he is not calling for direct violence against anyone but as Bush and his cronies proved, when you believe you have a religious agenda (like Robinson) almost any act of violence can be rationalised and bent to fit your world view.
So, what's the difference between someone like Pat Robinson and 'Crazy Muslim With a Hook'?
This man is a deluded extremist who believes an evil mythical deity is responsible for a natural disaster (the kind of natural disaster that has been occurring since at least the beginning of recorded human history). This man's bile is no less insulting, and no less dangerous, than the venomous rhetoric that is spewed out in extremist mosques around the world. One might say it is less dangerous because he is not calling for direct violence against anyone but as Bush and his cronies proved, when you believe you have a religious agenda (like Robinson) almost any act of violence can be rationalised and bent to fit your world view.
So, what's the difference between someone like Pat Robinson and 'Crazy Muslim With a Hook'?